>> From theCUBE studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> Confidential computing is a technology that aims to enhance data privacy and security by providing encrypted computation on sensitive data and isolating data from apps in a fenced off enclave during processing. The concept of confidential computing is gaining popularity, especially in the cloud computing space where sensitive data is often stored and of course processed. However, there are some who view confidential computing as an unnecessary technology in a marketing ploy by cloud providers aimed at calming customers who are cloud phobic. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon CUBE Insights powered by ETR. In this Breaking Analysis, we revisit the notion of confidential computing, and to do so, we'll invite two Google experts to the show, but before we get there, let's summarize briefly. There's not a ton of ETR data on the topic of confidential computing. I mean, it's a technology that's deeply embedded into silicon and computing architectures. But at the highest level, security remains the number one priority being addressed by IT decision makers in the coming year as shown here. And this data is pretty much across the board by industry, by region, by size of company. I mean we dug into it and the only slight deviation from the mean is in financial services. The second and third most cited priorities, cloud migration and analytics, are noticeably closer to cybersecurity in financial services than in other sectors, likely because financial services has always been hyper security conscious, but security is still a clear number one priority in that sector. The idea behind confidential computing is to better address threat models for data in execution. Protecting data at rest and data and transit have long been a focus of security approaches, but more recently, silicon manufacturers have introduced architectures that separate data and applications from the host system. Arm, Intel, AMD, Nvidia and other suppliers are all on board, as are the big cloud players. Now the argument against confidential computing is that it narrowly focuses on memory encryption and it doesn't solve the biggest problems in security. Multiple system images updates different services and the entire code flow aren't directly addressed by memory encryption, rather to truly attack these problems, many believe that OSs need to be re-engineered with the attacker and hacker in mind. There are so many variables and at the end of the day, critics say the emphasis on confidential computing made by cloud providers is overstated and largely hype. This tweet from security researcher Rodrigo Branco sums up the sentiment of many skeptics. He says, "Confidential computing is mostly a marketing campaign for memory encryption. It's not driving the industry towards the hard open problems. It is selling an illusion." Okay. Nonetheless, encrypting data in use and fencing off key components of the system isn't a bad thing, especially if it comes with the package essentially for free. There has been a lack of standardization and interoperability between different confidential computing approaches. But the confidential computing consortium was established in 2019 ostensibly to accelerate the market and influence standards. Notably, AWS is not part of the consortium, likely because the politics of the consortium were probably a conundrum for AWS because the base technology defined by the the consortium is seen as limiting by AWS. This is my guess, not AWS's words, and but I think joining the consortium would validate a definition which AWS isn't aligned with. And two, it's got a lead with this Annapurna acquisition. This was way ahead with Arm integration and so it probably doesn't feel the need to validate its competitors. Anyway, one of the premier members of the confidential computing consortium is Google, along with many high profile names including Arm, Intel, Meta, Red Hat, Microsoft, and others. And we're pleased to welcome two experts on confidential computing from Google to unpack the topic, Nelly Porter is head of product for GCP confidential computing and encryption, and Dr. Patricia Florissi is the technical director for the office of the CTO at Google Cloud. Welcome Nelly and Patricia, great to have you. >> Great to be here. >> Thank you so much for having us. >> You're very welcome. Nelly, why don't you start and then Patricia, you can weigh in. Just tell the audience a little bit about each of your roles at Google Cloud. >> So I'll start, I'm owning a lot of interesting activities in Google and again security or infrastructure securities that I usually own. And we are talking about encryption and when encryption and confidential computing is a part of portfolio in additional areas that I contribute together with my team to Google and our customers is secure software supply chain. Because you need to trust your software. Is it operate in your confidential environment to have end-to-end story about if you believe that your software and your environment doing what you expect, it's my role. >> Got it. Okay. Patricia? >> Well, I am a technical director in the office of the CTO, OCTO for short, in Google Cloud. And we are a global team. We include former CTOs like myself and senior technologists from large corporations, institutions and a lot of success, we're startups as well. And we have two main goals. First, we walk side by side with some of our largest, more strategic or most strategical customers and we help them solve complex engineering technical problems. And second, we are devise Google and Google Cloud engineering and product management and tech on there, on emerging trends and technologies to guide the trajectory of our business. We are unique group, I think, because we have created this collaborative culture with our customers. And within OCTO, I spend a lot of time collaborating with customers and the industry at large on technologies that can address privacy, security, and sovereignty of data in general. >> Excellent. Thank you for that both of you. Let's get into it. So Nelly, what is confidential computing? From Google's perspective, how do you define it? >> Confidential computing is a tool and it's still one of the tools in our toolbox. And confidential computing is a way how we would help our customers to complete this very interesting end-to-end lifecycle of the data. And when customers bring in the data to cloud and want to protect it as they ingest it to the cloud, they protect it at rest when they store data in the cloud. But what was missing for many, many years is ability for us to continue protecting data and workloads of our customers when they running them. And again, because data is not brought to cloud to have huge graveyard, we need to ensure that this data is actually indexed. Again, there is some insights driven and drawn from this data. You have to process this data and confidential computing here to help. Now we have end to end protection of our customer's data when they bring the workloads and data to cloud, thanks to confidential computing. >> Thank you for that. Okay, we're going to get into the architecture a bit, but before we do, Patricia, why do you think this topic of confidential computing is such an important technology? Can you explain, do you think it's transformative for customers and if so, why? >> Yeah, I would maybe like to use one thought, one way, one intuition behind why confidential commuting matters, because at the end of the day, it reduces more and more the customer's thresh boundaries and the attack surface. That's about reducing that periphery, the boundary in which the customer needs to mind about trust and safety. And in a way, is a natural progression that you're using encryption to secure and protect the data. In the same way that we are encrypting data in transit and at rest, now we are also encrypting data while in use. And among other beneficials, I would say one of the most transformative ones is that organizations will be able to collaborate with each other and retain the confidentiality of the data. And that is across industry, even though it's highly focused on, I wouldn't say highly focused, but very beneficial for highly regulated industries. It applies to all of industries. And if you look at financing for example, where bankers are trying to detect fraud, and specifically double finance where you are, a customer is actually trying to get a finance on an asset, let's say a boat or a house, and then it goes to another bank and gets another finance on that asset. Now bankers would be able to collaborate and detect fraud while preserving confidentiality and privacy of the data. >> Interesting. And I want to understand that a little bit more but I'm going to push you a little bit on this, Nelly, if I can because there's a narrative out there that says confidential computing is a marketing ploy, I talked about this upfront, by cloud providers that are just trying to placate people that are scared of the cloud. And I'm presuming you don't agree with that, but I'd like you to weigh in here. The argument is confidential computing is just memory encryption and it doesn't address many other problems. It is over hyped by cloud providers. What do you say to that line of thinking? >> I absolutely disagree, as you can imagine, with this statement, but the most importantly is we mixing multiple concepts, I guess. And exactly as Patricia said, we need to look at the end-to-end story, not again the mechanism how confidential computing trying to again, execute and protect a customer's data and why it's so critically important because what confidential computing was able to do, it's in addition to isolate our tenants in multi-tenant environments the cloud covering to offer additional stronger isolation. They called it cryptographic isolation. It's why customers will have more trust to customers and to other customers, the tenant that's running on the same host but also us because they don't need to worry about against threats and more malicious attempts to penetrate the environment. So what confidential computing is helping us to offer our customers, stronger isolation between tenants in this multi-tenant environment, but also incredibly important, stronger isolation of our customers, so tenants from us. We also writing code, we also software providers will also make mistakes or have some zero days. Sometimes again us introduced, sometimes introduced by our adversaries. But what I'm trying to say by creating this cryptographic layer of isolation between us and our tenants and amongst those tenants, we're really providing meaningful security to our customers and eliminate some of the worries that they have running on multi-tenant spaces or even collaborating to gather this very sensitive data knowing that this particular protection is available to them. >> Okay, thank you. Appreciate that. And I think malicious code is often a threat model missed in these narratives. Operator access, yeah, maybe I trust my clouds provider, but if I can fence off your access even better, I'll sleep better at night. Separating a code from the data, everybody's, Arm, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, others, they're all doing it. I wonder if, Nelly, if we could stay with you and bring up the slide on the architecture. What's architecturally different with confidential computing versus how operating systems and VMs have worked traditionally. We're showing a slide here with some VMs, maybe you could take us through that. >> Absolutely. And Dave, the whole idea for Google and now industry way of dealing with confidential computing is to ensure that three main property is actually preserved. Customers don't need to change the code. They can operate on those VMs exactly as they would with normal non-confidential VMs, but to give them this opportunity of lift and shift or no changing their apps and performing and having very, very, very low latency and scale as any cloud can, something that Google actually pioneer in confidential computing. I think we need to open and explain how this magic was actually done. And as I said, it's again the whole entire system have to change to be able to provide this magic. And I would start with we have this concept of root of trust and root of trust where we will ensure that this machine, when the whole entire post has integrity guarantee, means nobody changing my code on the most low level of system. And we introduce this in 2017 called Titan. It was our specific ASIC, specific, again, inch by inch system on every single motherboard that we have that ensures that your low level former, your actually system code, your kernel, the most powerful system is actually proper configured and not changed, not tampered. We do it for everybody, confidential computing included. But for confidential computing, what we have to change, we bring in AMD, or again, future silicon vendors and we have to trust their former, their way to deal with our confidential environments. And that's why we have obligation to validate integrity, not only our software and our former but also former and software of our vendors, silicon vendors. So we actually, when we booting this machine, as you can see, we validate that integrity of all of the system is in place. It means nobody touching, nobody changing, nobody modifying it. But then we have this concept of AMD secure processor, it's special ASICs, best specific things that generate a key for every single VM that our customers will run or every single node in Kubernetes or every single worker thread in our Hadoop or Spark capability. We offer all of that. And those keys are not available to us. It's the best keys ever in encryption space because when we are talking about encryption, the first question that I'm receiving all the time, where's the key, who will have access to the key? Because if you have access to the key then it doesn't matter if you encrypted or not. So, but the case in confidential computing provides so revolutionary technology, us cloud providers, who don't have access to the keys. They sitting in the hardware and they head to memory controller. And it means when hypervisors that also know about these wonderful things saying I need to get access to the memories that this particular VM trying to get access to, they do not decrypt the data, they don't have access to the key because those keys are random, ephemeral and per VM, but the most importantly, in hardware not exportable. And it means now you would be able to have this very interesting role that customers or cloud providers will not be able to get access to your memory. And what we do, again, as you can see our customers don't need to change their applications, their VMs are running exactly as it should run and what you're running in VM, you actually see your memory in clear, it's not encrypted, but God forbid is trying somebody to do it outside of my confidential box. No, no, no, no, no, they would not be able to do it. Now you'll see cyber and it's exactly what combination of these multiple hardware pieces and software pieces have to do. So OS is also modified. And OS is modified such way to provide integrity. It means even OS that you're running in your VM box is not modifiable and you, as customer, can verify. But the most interesting thing, I guess, how to ensure the super performance of this environment because you can imagine, Dave, that encrypting and it's additional performance, additional time, additional latency. So we were able to mitigate all of that by providing incredibly interesting capability in the OS itself. So our customers will get no changes needed, fantastic performance and scales as they would expect from cloud providers like Google. >> Okay, thank you. Excellent. Appreciate that explanation. So, again, the narrative on this as well, you've already given me guarantees as a cloud provider that you don't have access to my data, but this gives another level of assurance, key management as they say is key. Now humans aren't managing the keys, the machines are managing them. So Patricia, my question to you is, in addition to, let's go pre confidential computing days, what are the sort of new guarantees that these hardware-based technologies are going to provide to customers? >> So if I am a customer, I am saying I now have full guarantee of confidentiality and integrity of the data and of the code. So if you look at code and data confidentiality, the customer cares and they want to know whether their systems are protected from outside or unauthorized access, and that recovered with Nelly, that it is. Confidential computing actually ensures that the applications and data internals remain secret, right? The code is actually looking at the data, the only the memory is decrypting the data with a key that is ephemeral and per VM and generated on demand. Then you have the second point where you have code and data integrity, and now customers want to know whether their data was corrupted, tampered with or impacted by outside actors. And what confidential computing ensures is that application internals are not tampered with. So the application, the workload as we call it, that is processing the data, it's also, it has not been tampered and preserves integrity. I would also say that this is all verifiable. So you have attestation and these attestation actually generates a log trail and the log trail guarantees that, provides a proof that it was preserved. And I think that the offer's also a guarantee of what we call ceiling, this idea that the secrets have been preserved and not tampered with, confidentiality and integrity of code and data. >> Got it. Okay, thank you. Nelly, you mentioned, I think I heard you say that the applications, it's transparent, you don't have to change the application, it just comes for free essentially. And we showed some various parts of the stack before. I'm curious as to what's affected, but really more importantly, what is specifically Google's value add? How do partners participate in this, the ecosystem, or maybe said another way, how does Google ensure the compatibility of confidential computing with existing systems and applications? >> And a fantastic question by the way. And it's very difficult and definitely complicated world because to be able to provide these guarantees, actually a lot of work was done by community. Google is very much operate in open, so again, our operating system, we working with operating system repository OSs, OS vendors to ensure that all capabilities that we need is part of the kernels, are part of the releases and it's available for customers to understand and even explore if they have fun to explore a lot of code. We have also modified together with our silicon vendors a kernel, host kernel to support this capability and it means working this community to ensure that all of those patches are there. We also worked with every single silicon vendor as you've seen, and that's what I probably feel that Google contributed quite a bit in this whole, we moved our industry, our community, our vendors to understand the value of easy to use confidential computing or removing barriers. And now I don't know if you noticed, Intel is pulling the lead and also announcing their trusted domain extension, very similar architecture. And no surprise, it's, again, a lot of work done with our partners to, again, convince, work with them and make this capability available. The same with Arm this year, actually last year, Arm announced their future design for confidential computing. It's called Confidential Computing Architecture. And it's also influenced very heavily with similar ideas by Google and industry overall. So it's a lot of work in confidential computing consortiums that we are doing, for example, simply to mention, to ensure interop, as you mentioned, between different confidential environments of cloud providers. They want to ensure that they can attest to each other because when you're communicating with different environments, you need to trust them. And if it's running on different cloud providers, you need to ensure that you can trust your receiver when you are sharing your sensitive data workloads or secret with them. So we coming as a community and we have this attestation sig, the, again, the community based systems that we want to build and influence and work with Arm and every other cloud providers to ensure that we can interrupt and it means it doesn't matter where confidential workloads will be hosted, but they can exchange the data in secure, verifiable and controlled by customers way. And to do it, we need to continue what we are doing, working open, again, and contribute with our ideas and ideas of our partners to this role to become what we see confidential computing has to become, it has to become utility. It doesn't need to be so special, but it's what we want it to become. >> Let's talk about, thank you for that explanation. Let's talk about data sovereignty because when you think about data sharing, you think about data sharing across the ecosystem and different regions and then of course data sovereignty comes up. Typically public policy lags, the technology industry and sometimes is problematic. I know there's a lot of discussions about exceptions, but Patricia, we have a graphic on data sovereignty. I'm interested in how confidential computing ensures that data sovereignty and privacy edicts are adhered to, even if they're out of alignment maybe with the pace of technology. One of the frequent examples is when you delete data, can you actually prove that data is deleted with a hundred percent certainty? You got to prove that and a lot of other issues. So looking at this slide, maybe you could take us through your thinking on data sovereignty. >> Perfect. So for us, data sovereignty is only one of the three pillars of digital sovereignty. And I don't want to give the impression that confidential computing addresses it all. That's why we want to step back and say, hey, digital sovereignty includes data sovereignty where we are giving you full control and ownership of the location, encryption and access to your data. Operational sovereignty where the goal is to give our Google Cloud customers full visibility and control over the provider operations, right? So if there are any updates on hardware, software stack, any operations, there is full transparency, full visibility. And then the third pillar is around software sovereignty where the customer wants to ensure that they can run their workloads without dependency on the provider's software. So they have sometimes is often referred as survivability, that you can actually survive if you are untethered to the cloud and that you can use open source. Now let's take a deep dive on data sovereignty, which by the way is one of my favorite topics. And we typically focus on saying, hey, we need to care about data residency. We care where the data resides because where the data is at rest or in processing, it typically abides to the jurisdiction, the regulations of the jurisdiction where the data resides. And others say, hey, let's focus on data protection. We want to ensure the confidentiality and integrity and availability of the data, which confidential computing is at the heart of that data protection. But it is yet another element that people typically don't talk about when talking about data sovereignty, which is the element of user control. And here, Dave, is about what happens to the data when I give you access to my data. And this reminds me of security two decades ago, even a decade ago, where we started the security movement by putting firewall protections and login accesses. But once you were in, you were able to do everything you wanted with the data. An insider had access to all the infrastructure, the data and the code. And that's similar because with data sovereignty we care about whether it resides, where, who is operating on the data. But the moment that the data is being processed, I need to trust that the processing of the data will abide by user control, by the policies that I put in place of how my data is going to be used. And if you look at a lot of the regulation today and a lot of the initiatives around the International Data Space Association, IDSA, and Gaia-X, there is a movement of saying the two parties, the provider of the data and the receiver of the data are going to agree on a contract that describes what my data can be used for. The challenge is to ensure that once the data crosses boundaries, that the data will be used for the purposes that it was intended and specified in the contract. And if you actually bring together, and this is the exciting part, confidential computing together with policy enforcement, now the policy enforcement can guarantee that the data is only processed within the confines of a confidential computing environment, that the workload is cryptographically verified that there is the workload that was meant to process the data and that the data will be only used when abiding to the confidentiality and integrity safety of the confidential computing environment. And that's why we believe confidential computing is one necessary and essential technology that will allow us to ensure data sovereignty, especially when it comes to user control. >> Thank you for that. I mean it was a deep dive, I mean brief, but really detailed. So I appreciate that, especially the verification of the enforcement. Last question, I met you two because as part of my year end prediction post, you guys sent in some predictions and I wasn't able to get to them in the predictions post. So I'm thrilled that you were able to make the time to come on the program. How widespread do you think the adoption of confidential computing will be in 23 and what's the maturity curve look like, this decade in your opinion? Maybe each of you could give us a brief answer. >> So my prediction in five, seven years, as I started, it'll become utility. It'll become TLS as of, again, 10 years ago we couldn't believe that websites will have certificates and we will support encrypted traffic. Now we do and it's become ubiquity. It's exactly where confidential computing is getting and heading, I don't know we deserve yet. It'll take a few years of maturity for us, but we will be there. >> Thank you. And Patricia, what's your prediction? >> I will double that and say, hey, in the future, in the very near future, you will not be able to afford not having it. I believe as digital sovereignty becomes evermore top of mind with sovereign states and also for multi national organizations and for organizations that want to collaborate with each other, confidential computing will become the norm. It'll become the default, if I say, mode of operation. I like to compare that today is inconceivable. If we talk to the young technologists, it's inconceivable to think that at some point in history, and I happen to be alive that we had data at rest that was not encrypted, data in transit that was not encrypted, and I think that will be inconceivable at some point in the near future that to have unencrypted data while in use. >> And plus I think the beauty of the this industry is because there's so much competition, this essentially comes for free. I want to thank you both for spending some time on Breaking Analysis. There's so much more we could cover. I hope you'll come back to share the progress that you're making in this area and we can double click on some of these topics. Really appreciate your time. >> Anytime. >> Thank you so much. >> In summary, while confidential computing is being touted by the cloud players as a promising technology for enhancing data privacy and security, there are also those, as we said, who remain skeptical. The truth probably lies somewhere in between and it will depend on the specific implementation and the use case as to how effective confidential computing will be. Look, as with any new tech, it's important to carefully evaluate the potential benefits, the drawbacks, and make informed decisions based on the specific requirements in the situation and the constraints of each individual customer. But the bottom line is silicon manufacturers are working with cloud providers and other system companies to include confidential computing into their architectures. Competition, in our view, will moderate price hikes. And at the end of the day, this is under the covers technology that essentially will come for free. So we'll take it. I want to thank our guests today, Nelly and Patricia from Google, and thanks to Alex Myerson who's on production and manages the podcast. Ken Schiffman as well out of our Boston studio, Kristin Martin and Cheryl Knight help get the word out on social media and in our newsletters. And Rob Hof is our editor-in-chief over at siliconangle.com. Does some great editing for us, thank you all. Remember all these episodes are available as podcasts. Wherever you listen, just search Breaking Analysis podcast. I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com where you can get all the news. If you want to get in touch, you can email me at david.vellante@siliconangle.com or dm me @DVellante. And you can also comment on my LinkedIn post. Definitely you want to check out etr.ai for the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. I know we didn't hit on a lot today, but there's some amazing data and it's always being updated, so check that out. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE Insights, powered by ETR. Thanks for watching and we'll see you next time on Breaking Analysis. (upbeat music)

>> From the Cube Studios in Palo Alto in Boston bringing you data-driven insights from the Cube and ETR. This is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> The unraveling of market enthusiasm continued in Q4 of 2022 with the earnings reports from the US hyperscalers, the big three now all in. As we said earlier this year, even the cloud is an immune from the macro headwinds and the cracks in the armor that we saw from the data that we shared last summer, they're playing out into 2023. For the most part actuals are disappointing beyond expectations including our own. It turns out that our estimates for the big three hyperscaler's revenue missed by 1.2 billion or 2.7% lower than we had forecast from even our most recent November estimates. And we expect continued decelerating growth rates for the hyperscalers through the summer of 2023 and we don't think that's going to abate until comparisons get easier. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon Cube Insights powered by ETR. In this Breaking Analysis, we share our view of what's happening in cloud markets not just for the hyperscalers but other firms that have hitched a ride on the cloud. And we'll share new ETR data that shows why these trends are playing out tactics that customers are employing to deal with their cost challenges and how long the pain is likely to last. You know, riding the cloud wave, it's a two-edged sword. Let's look at the players that have gone all in on or are exposed to both the positive and negative trends of cloud. Look the cloud has been a huge tailwind for so many companies like Snowflake and Databricks, Workday, Salesforce, Mongo's move with Atlas, Red Hats Cloud strategy with OpenShift and so forth. And you know, the flip side is because cloud is elastic what comes up can also go down very easily. Here's an XY graphic from ETR that shows spending momentum or net score on the vertical axis and market presence in the dataset on the horizontal axis provision or called overlap. This is data from the January 2023 survey and that the red dotted lines show the positions of several companies that we've highlighted going back to January 2021. So let's unpack this for a bit starting with the big three hyperscalers. The first point is AWS and Azure continue to solidify their moat relative to Google Cloud platform. And we're going to get into this in a moment, but Azure and AWS revenues are five to six times that of GCP for IaaS. And at those deltas, Google should be gaining ground much faster than the big two. The second point on Google is notice the red line on GCP relative to its starting point. While it appears to be gaining ground on the horizontal axis, its net score is now below that of AWS and Azure in the survey. So despite its significantly smaller size it's just not keeping pace with the leaders in terms of market momentum. Now looking at AWS and Microsoft, what we see is basically AWS is holding serve. As we know both Google and Microsoft benefit from including SaaS in their cloud numbers. So the fact that AWS hasn't seen a huge downward momentum relative to a January 2021 position is one positive in the data. And both companies are well above that magic 40% line on the Y-axis, anything above 40% we consider to be highly elevated. But the fact remains that they're down as are most of the names on this chart. So let's take a closer look. I want to start with Snowflake and Databricks. Snowflake, as we reported from several quarters back came down to Earth, it was up in the 80% range in the Y-axis here. And it's still highly elevated in the 60% range and it continues to move to the right, which is positive but as we'll address in a moment it's customers can dial down consumption just as in any cloud. Now, Databricks is really interesting. It's not a public company, it never made it to IPO during the sort of tech bubble. So we don't have the same level of transparency that we do with other companies that did make it through. But look at how much more prominent it is on the X-axis relative to January 2021. And it's net score is basically held up over that period of time. So that's a real positive for Databricks. Next, look at Workday and Salesforce. They've held up relatively well, both inching to the right and generally holding their net scores. Same from Mongo, which is the brown dot above its name that says Elastic, it says a little gets a little crowded which Elastic's actually the blue dot above it. But generally, SaaS is harder to dial down, Workday, Salesforce, Oracles, SaaS and others. So it's harder to dial down because commitments have been made in advance, they're kind of locked in. Now, one of the discussions from last summer was as Mongo, less discretionary than analytics i.e. Snowflake. And it's an interesting debate but maybe Snowflake customers, you know, they're also generally committed to a dollar amount. So over time the spending is going to be there. But in the short term, yeah maybe Snowflake customers can dial down. Now that highlighted dotted red line, that bolded one is Datadog and you can see it's made major strides on the X-axis but its net score has decelerated quite dramatically. Openshift's momentum in the survey has dropped although IBM just announced that OpenShift has a a billion dollar ARR and I suspect what's happening there is IBM consulting is bundling OpenShift into its modernization projects. It's got a, that sort of captive base if you will. And as such it's probably not as top of mind to the respondents but I'll bet you the developers are certainly aware of it. Now the other really notable call out here is CloudFlare, We've reported on them earlier. Cloudflare's net score has held up really well since January of 2021. It really hasn't seen the downdraft of some of these others, but it's making major major moves to the right gaining market presence. We really like how CloudFlare is performing. And the last comment is on Oracle which as you can see, despite its much, much lower net score continues to gain ground in the market and thrive from a profitability standpoint. But the data pretty clearly shows that there's a downdraft in the market. Okay, so what's happening here? Let's dig deeper into this data. Here's a graphic from the most recent ETR drill down asking customers that said they were going to cut spending what technique they're using to do so. Now, as we've previously reported, consolidating redundant vendors is by far the most cited approach but there's two key points we want to make here. One is reducing excess cloud resources. As you can see in the bars is the second most cited technique and it's up from the previous polling period. The second we're not showing, you know directly but we've got some red call outs there. Reducing cloud costs jumps to 29% and 28% respectively in financial services and tech telco. And it's much closer to second. It's basically neck and neck with consolidating redundant vendors in those two industries. So they're being really aggressive about optimizing cloud cost. Okay, so as we said, cloud is great 'cause you can dial it up but it's just as easy to dial down. We've identified six factors that customers tell us are affecting their cloud consumption and there are probably more, if you got more we'd love to hear them but these are the ones that are fairly prominent that have hit our radar. First, rising mortgage rates mean banks are processing fewer loans means less cloud. The crypto crash means less trading activity and that means less cloud resources. Third lower ad spend has led companies to reduce not only you know, their ad buying but also their frequency of running their analytics and their calculations. And they're also often using less data, maybe compressing the timeframe of the corpus down to a shorter time period. Also very prominent is down to the bottom left, using lower cost compute instances. For example, Graviton from AWS or AMD chips and tiering storage to cheaper S3 or deep archived tiers. And finally, optimizing based on better pricing plans. So customers are moving from, you know, smaller companies in particular moving maybe from on demand or other larger companies that are experimenting using on demand or they're moving to spot pricing or reserved instances or optimized savings plans. That all lowers cost and that means less cloud resource consumption and less cloud revenue. Now in the days when everything was on prem CFOs, what would they do? They would freeze CapEx and IT Pros would have to try to do more with less and often that meant a lot of manual tasks. With the cloud it's much easier to move things around. It still takes some thinking and some effort but it's dramatically simpler to do so. So you can get those savings a lot faster. Now of course the other huge factor is you can cut or you can freeze. And this graphic shows data from a recent ETR survey with 159 respondents and you can see the meaningful uptick in hiring freezes, freezing new IT deployments and layoffs. And as we've been reporting, this has been trending up since earlier last year. And note the call out, this is especially prominent in retail sectors, all three of these techniques jump up in retail and that's a bit of a concern because oftentimes consumer spending helps the economy make a softer landing out of a pullback. But this is a potential canary in the coal mine. If retail firms are pulling back it's because consumers aren't spending as much. And so we're keeping a close eye on that. So let's boil this down to the market data and what this all means. So in this graphic we show our estimates for Q4 IaaS revenues compared to the "actual" IaaS revenues. And we say quote because AWS is the only one that reports, you know clean revenue and IaaS, Azure and GCP don't report actuals. Why would they? Because it would make them look even, you know smaller relative to AWS. Rather, they bury the figures in overall cloud which includes their, you know G-Suite for Google and all the Microsoft SaaS. And then they give us little tidbits about in Microsoft's case, Azure, they give growth rates. Google gives kind of relative growth of GCP. So, and we use survey data and you know, other data to try to really pinpoint and we've been covering this for, I don't know, five or six years ever since the cloud really became a thing. But looking at the data, we had AWS growing at 25% this quarter and it came in at 20%. So a significant decline relative to our expectations. AWS announced that it exited December, actually, sorry it's January data showed about a 15% mid-teens growth rate. So that's, you know, something we're watching. Azure was two points off our forecast coming in at 38% growth. It said it exited December in the 35% growth range and it said that it's expecting five points of deceleration off of that. So think 30% for Azure. GCP came in three points off our expectation coming in 35% and Alibaba has yet to report but we've shaved a bid off that forecast based on some survey data and you know what maybe 9% is even still not enough. Now for the year, the big four hyperscalers generated almost 160 billion of revenue, but that was 7 billion lower than what what we expected coming into 2022. For 2023, we're expecting 21% growth for a total of 193.3 billion. And while it's, you know, lower, you know, significantly lower than historical expectations it's still four to five times the overall spending forecast that we just shared with you in our predictions post of between 4 and 5% for the overall market. We think AWS is going to come in in around 93 billion this year with Azure closing in at over 71 billion. This is, again, we're talking IaaS here. Now, despite Amazon focusing investors on the fact that AWS's absolute dollar growth is still larger than its competitors. By our estimates Azure will come in at more than 75% of AWS's forecasted revenue. That's a significant milestone. AWS is operating margins by the way declined significantly this past quarter, dropping from 30% of revenue to 24%, 30% the year earlier to 24%. Now that's still extremely healthy and we've seen wild fluctuations like this before so I don't get too freaked out about that. But I'll say this, Microsoft has a marginal cost advantage relative to AWS because one, it has a captive cloud on which to run its massive software estate. So it can just throw software at its own cloud and two software marginal costs. Marginal economics despite AWS's awesomeness in high degrees of automation, software is just a better business. Now the upshot for AWS is the ecosystem. AWS is essentially in our view positioning very smartly as a platform for data partners like Snowflake and Databricks, security partners like CrowdStrike and Okta and Palo Alto and many others and SaaS companies. You know, Microsoft is more competitive even though AWS does have competitive products. Now of course Amazon's competitive to retail companies so that's another factor but generally speaking for tech players, Amazon is a really thriving ecosystem that is a secret weapon in our view. AWS happy to spin the meter with its partners even though it sells competitive products, you know, more so in our view than other cloud players. Microsoft, of course is, don't forget is hyping now, we're hearing a lot OpenAI and ChatGPT we reported last week in our predictions post. How OpenAI is shot up in terms of market sentiment in ETR's emerging technology company surveys and people are moving to Azure to get OpenAI and get ChatGPT that is a an interesting lever. Amazon in our view has to have a response. They have lots of AI and they're going to have to make some moves there. Meanwhile, Google is emphasizing itself as an AI first company. In fact, Google spent at least five minutes of continuous dialogue, nonstop on its AI chops during its latest earnings call. So that's an area that we're watching very closely as the buzz around large language models continues. All right, let's wrap up with some assumptions for 2023. We think SaaS players are going to continue to be sticky. They're going to be somewhat insulated from all these downdrafts because they're so tied in and customers, you know they make the commitment up front, you've got the lock in. Now having said that, we do expect some backlash over time on the onerous and generally customer unfriendly pricing models of most large SaaS companies. But that's going to play out over a longer period of time. Now for cloud generally and the hyperscalers specifically we do expect accelerating growth rates into Q3 but the amplitude of the demand swings from this rubber band economy, we expect to continue to compress and become more predictable throughout the year. Estimates are coming down, CEOs we think are going to be more cautious when the market snaps back more cautious about hiring and spending and as such a perhaps we expect a more orderly return to growth which we think will slightly accelerate in Q4 as comps get easier. Now of course the big risk to these scenarios is of course the economy, the FED, consumer spending, inflation, supply chain, energy prices, wars, geopolitics, China relations, you know, all the usual stuff. But as always with our partners at ETR and the Cube community, we're here for you. We have the data and we'll be the first to report when we see a change at the margin. Okay, that's a wrap for today. I want to thank Alex Morrison who's on production and manages the podcast, Ken Schiffman as well out of our Boston studio getting this up on LinkedIn Live. Thank you for that. Kristen Martin also and Cheryl Knight help get the word out on social media and in our newsletters. And Rob Hof is our Editor-in-Chief over at siliconangle.com. He does some great editing for us. Thank you all. Remember all these episodes are available as podcast. Wherever you listen, just search Breaking Analysis podcast. I publish each week on wikibon.com, at siliconangle.com where you can see all the data and you want to get in touch. Just all you can do is email me david.vellante@siliconangle.com or DM me @dvellante if you if you got something interesting, I'll respond. If you don't, it's either 'cause I'm swamped or it's just not tickling me. You can comment on our LinkedIn post as well. And please check out ETR.ai for the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Vellante for the Cube Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching and we'll see you next time on Breaking Analysis. (gentle upbeat music)

(upbeat music beginning) >> From the Cube Studios in Palo Alto and Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from the Cube and ETR, this is "Breaking Analysis" with Dave Vellante. >> Making predictions about the future of enterprise tech is more challenging if you strive to lay down forecasts that are measurable. In other words, if you make a prediction, you should be able to look back a year later and say, with some degree of certainty, whether the prediction came true or not, with evidence to back that up. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon Cube Insights, powered by ETR. In this breaking analysis, we aim to do just that, with predictions about the macro IT spending environment, cost optimization, security, lots to talk about there, generative AI, cloud, and of course supercloud, blockchain adoption, data platforms, including commentary on Databricks, snowflake, and other key players, automation, events, and we may even have some bonus predictions around quantum computing, and perhaps some other areas. To make all this happen, we welcome back, for the third year in a row, my colleague and friend Eric Bradley from ETR. Eric, thanks for all you do for the community, and thanks for being part of this program. Again. >> I wouldn't miss it for the world. I always enjoy this one. Dave, good to see you. >> Yeah, so let me bring up this next slide and show you, actually come back to me if you would. I got to show the audience this. These are the inbounds that we got from PR firms starting in October around predictions. They know we do prediction posts. And so they'll send literally thousands and thousands of predictions from hundreds of experts in the industry, technologists, consultants, et cetera. And if you bring up the slide I can show you sort of the pattern that developed here. 40% of these thousands of predictions were from cyber. You had AI and data. If you combine those, it's still not close to cyber. Cost optimization was a big thing. Of course, cloud, some on DevOps, and software. Digital... Digital transformation got, you know, some lip service and SaaS. And then there was other, it's kind of around 2%. So quite remarkable, when you think about the focus on cyber, Eric. >> Yeah, there's two reasons why I think it makes sense, though. One, the cybersecurity companies have a lot of cash, so therefore the PR firms might be working a little bit harder for them than some of their other clients. (laughs) And then secondly, as you know, for multiple years now, when we do our macro survey, we ask, "What's your number one spending priority?" And again, it's security. It just isn't going anywhere. It just stays at the top. So I'm actually not that surprised by that little pie chart there, but I was shocked that SaaS was only 5%. You know, going back 10 years ago, that would've been the only thing anyone was talking about. >> Yeah. So true. All right, let's get into it. First prediction, we always start with kind of tech spending. Number one is tech spending increases between four and 5%. ETR has currently got it at 4.6% coming into 2023. This has been a consistently downward trend all year. We started, you know, much, much higher as we've been reporting. Bottom line is the fed is still in control. They're going to ease up on tightening, is the expectation, they're going to shoot for a soft landing. But you know, my feeling is this slingshot economy is going to continue, and it's going to continue to confound, whether it's supply chains or spending. The, the interesting thing about the ETR data, Eric, and I want you to comment on this, the largest companies are the most aggressive to cut. They're laying off, smaller firms are spending faster. They're actually growing at a much larger, faster rate as are companies in EMEA. And that's a surprise. That's outpacing the US and APAC. Chime in on this, Eric. >> Yeah, I was surprised on all of that. First on the higher level spending, we are definitely seeing it coming down, but the interesting thing here is headlines are making it worse. The huge research shop recently said 0% growth. We're coming in at 4.6%. And just so everyone knows, this is not us guessing, we asked 1,525 IT decision-makers what their budget growth will be, and they came in at 4.6%. Now there's a huge disparity, as you mentioned. The Fortune 500, global 2000, barely at 2% growth, but small, it's at 7%. So we're at a situation right now where the smaller companies are still playing a little bit of catch up on digital transformation, and they're spending money. The largest companies that have the most to lose from a recession are being more trepidatious, obviously. So they're playing a "Wait and see." And I hope we don't talk ourselves into a recession. Certainly the headlines and some of their research shops are helping it along. But another interesting comment here is, you know, energy and utilities used to be called an orphan and widow stock group, right? They are spending more than anyone, more than financials insurance, more than retail consumer. So right now it's being driven by mid, small, and energy and utilities. They're all spending like gangbusters, like nothing's happening. And it's the rest of everyone else that's being very cautious. >> Yeah, so very unpredictable right now. All right, let's go to number two. Cost optimization remains a major theme in 2023. We've been reporting on this. You've, we've shown a chart here. What's the primary method that your organization plans to use? You asked this question of those individuals that cited that they were going to reduce their spend and- >> Mhm. >> consolidating redundant vendors, you know, still leads the way, you know, far behind, cloud optimization is second, but it, but cloud continues to outpace legacy on-prem spending, no doubt. Somebody, it was, the guy's name was Alexander Feiglstorfer from Storyblok, sent in a prediction, said "All in one becomes extinct." Now, generally I would say I disagree with that because, you know, as we know over the years, suites tend to win out over, you know, individual, you know, point products. But I think what's going to happen is all in one is going to remain the norm for these larger companies that are cutting back. They want to consolidate redundant vendors, and the smaller companies are going to stick with that best of breed and be more aggressive and try to compete more effectively. What's your take on that? >> Yeah, I'm seeing much more consolidation in vendors, but also consolidation in functionality. We're seeing people building out new functionality, whether it's, we're going to talk about this later, so I don't want to steal too much of our thunder right now, but data and security also, we're seeing a functionality creep. So I think there's further consolidation happening here. I think niche solutions are going to be less likely, and platform solutions are going to be more likely in a spending environment where you want to reduce your vendors. You want to have one bill to pay, not 10. Another thing on this slide, real quick if I can before I move on, is we had a bunch of people write in and some of the answer options that aren't on this graph but did get cited a lot, unfortunately, is the obvious reduction in staff, hiring freezes, and delaying hardware, were three of the top write-ins. And another one was offshore outsourcing. So in addition to what we're seeing here, there were a lot of write-in options, and I just thought it would be important to state that, but essentially the cost optimization is by and far the highest one, and it's growing. So it's actually increased in our citations over the last year. >> And yeah, specifically consolidating redundant vendors. And so I actually thank you for bringing that other up, 'cause I had asked you, Eric, is there any evidence that repatriation is going on and we don't see it in the numbers, we don't see it even in the other, there was, I think very little or no mention of cloud repatriation, even though it might be happening in this in a smattering. >> Not a single mention, not one single mention. I went through it for you. Yep. Not one write-in. >> All right, let's move on. Number three, security leads M&A in 2023. Now you might say, "Oh, well that's a layup," but let me set this up Eric, because I didn't really do a great job with the slide. I hid the, what you've done, because you basically took, this is from the emerging technology survey with 1,181 responses from November. And what we did is we took Palo Alto and looked at the overlap in Palo Alto Networks accounts with these vendors that were showing on this chart. And Eric, I'm going to ask you to explain why we put a circle around OneTrust, but let me just set it up, and then have you comment on the slide and take, give us more detail. We're seeing private company valuations are off, you know, 10 to 40%. We saw a sneak, do a down round, but pretty good actually only down 12%. We've seen much higher down rounds. Palo Alto Networks we think is going to get busy. Again, they're an inquisitive company, they've been sort of quiet lately, and we think CrowdStrike, Cisco, Microsoft, Zscaler, we're predicting all of those will make some acquisitions and we're thinking that the targets are somewhere in this mess of security taxonomy. Other thing we're predicting AI meets cyber big time in 2023, we're going to probably going to see some acquisitions of those companies that are leaning into AI. We've seen some of that with Palo Alto. And then, you know, your comment to me, Eric, was "The RSA conference is going to be insane, hopping mad, "crazy this April," (Eric laughing) but give us your take on this data, and why the red circle around OneTrust? Take us back to that slide if you would, Alex. >> Sure. There's a few things here. First, let me explain what we're looking at. So because we separate the public companies and the private companies into two separate surveys, this allows us the ability to cross-reference that data. So what we're doing here is in our public survey, the tesis, everyone who cited some spending with Palo Alto, meaning they're a Palo Alto customer, we then cross-reference that with the private tech companies. Who also are they spending with? So what you're seeing here is an overlap. These companies that we have circled are doing the best in Palo Alto's accounts. Now, Palo Alto went and bought Twistlock a few years ago, which this data slide predicted, to be quite honest. And so I don't know if they necessarily are going to go after Snyk. Snyk, sorry. They already have something in that space. What they do need, however, is more on the authentication space. So I'm looking at OneTrust, with a 45% overlap in their overall net sentiment. That is a company that's already existing in their accounts and could be very synergistic to them. BeyondTrust as well, authentication identity. This is something that Palo needs to do to move more down that zero trust path. Now why did I pick Palo first? Because usually they're very inquisitive. They've been a little quiet lately. Secondly, if you look at the backdrop in the markets, the IPO freeze isn't going to last forever. Sooner or later, the IPO markets are going to open up, and some of these private companies are going to tap into public equity. In the meantime, however, cash funding on the private side is drying up. If they need another round, they're not going to get it, and they're certainly not going to get it at the valuations they were getting. So we're seeing valuations maybe come down where they're a touch more attractive, and Palo knows this isn't going to last forever. Cisco knows that, CrowdStrike, Zscaler, all these companies that are trying to make a push to become that vendor that you're consolidating in, around, they have a chance now, they have a window where they need to go make some acquisitions. And that's why I believe leading up to RSA, we're going to see some movement. I think it's going to pretty, a really exciting time in security right now. >> Awesome. Thank you. Great explanation. All right, let's go on the next one. Number four is, it relates to security. Let's stay there. Zero trust moves from hype to reality in 2023. Now again, you might say, "Oh yeah, that's a layup." A lot of these inbounds that we got are very, you know, kind of self-serving, but we always try to put some meat in the bone. So first thing we do is we pull out some commentary from, Eric, your roundtable, your insights roundtable. And we have a CISO from a global hospitality firm says, "For me that's the highest priority." He's talking about zero trust because it's the best ROI, it's the most forward-looking, and it enables a lot of the business transformation activities that we want to do. CISOs tell me that they actually can drive forward transformation projects that have zero trust, and because they can accelerate them, because they don't have to go through the hurdle of, you know, getting, making sure that it's secure. Second comment, zero trust closes that last mile where once you're authenticated, they open up the resource to you in a zero trust way. That's a CISO of a, and a managing director of a cyber risk services enterprise. Your thoughts on this? >> I can be here all day, so I'm going to try to be quick on this one. This is not a fluff piece on this one. There's a couple of other reasons this is happening. One, the board finally gets it. Zero trust at first was just a marketing hype term. Now the board understands it, and that's why CISOs are able to push through it. And what they finally did was redefine what it means. Zero trust simply means moving away from hardware security, moving towards software-defined security, with authentication as its base. The board finally gets that, and now they understand that this is necessary and it's being moved forward. The other reason it's happening now is hybrid work is here to stay. We weren't really sure at first, large companies were still trying to push people back to the office, and it's going to happen. The pendulum will swing back, but hybrid work's not going anywhere. By basically on our own data, we're seeing that 69% of companies expect remote and hybrid to be permanent, with only 30% permanent in office. Zero trust works for a hybrid environment. So all of that is the reason why this is happening right now. And going back to our previous prediction, this is why we're picking Palo, this is why we're picking Zscaler to make these acquisitions. Palo Alto needs to be better on the authentication side, and so does Zscaler. They're both fantastic on zero trust network access, but they need the authentication software defined aspect, and that's why we think this is going to happen. One last thing, in that CISO round table, I also had somebody say, "Listen, Zscaler is incredible. "They're doing incredibly well pervading the enterprise, "but their pricing's getting a little high," and they actually think Palo Alto is well-suited to start taking some of that share, if Palo can make one move. >> Yeah, Palo Alto's consolidation story is very strong. Here's my question and challenge. Do you and me, so I'm always hardcore about, okay, you've got to have evidence. I want to look back at these things a year from now and say, "Did we get it right? Yes or no?" If we got it wrong, we'll tell you we got it wrong. So how are we going to measure this? I'd say a couple things, and you can chime in. One is just the number of vendors talking about it. That's, but the marketing always leads the reality. So the second part of that is we got to get evidence from the buying community. Can you help us with that? >> (laughs) Luckily, that's what I do. I have a data company that asks thousands of IT decision-makers what they're adopting and what they're increasing spend on, as well as what they're decreasing spend on and what they're replacing. So I have snapshots in time over the last 11 years where I can go ahead and compare and contrast whether this adoption is happening or not. So come back to me in 12 months and I'll let you know. >> Now, you know, I will. Okay, let's bring up the next one. Number five, generative AI hits where the Metaverse missed. Of course everybody's talking about ChatGPT, we just wrote last week in a breaking analysis with John Furrier and Sarjeet Joha our take on that. We think 2023 does mark a pivot point as natural language processing really infiltrates enterprise tech just as Amazon turned the data center into an API. We think going forward, you're going to be interacting with technology through natural language, through English commands or other, you know, foreign language commands, and investors are lining up, all the VCs are getting excited about creating something competitive to ChatGPT, according to (indistinct) a hundred million dollars gets you a seat at the table, gets you into the game. (laughing) That's before you have to start doing promotion. But he thinks that's what it takes to actually create a clone or something equivalent. We've seen stuff from, you know, the head of Facebook's, you know, AI saying, "Oh, it's really not that sophisticated, ChatGPT, "it's kind of like IBM Watson, it's great engineering, "but you know, we've got more advanced technology." We know Google's working on some really interesting stuff. But here's the thing. ETR just launched this survey for the February survey. It's in the field now. We circle open AI in this category. They weren't even in the survey, Eric, last quarter. So 52% of the ETR survey respondents indicated a positive sentiment toward open AI. I added up all the sort of different bars, we could double click on that. And then I got this inbound from Scott Stevenson of Deep Graham. He said "AI is recession-proof." I don't know if that's the case, but it's a good quote. So bring this back up and take us through this. Explain this chart for us, if you would. >> First of all, I like Scott's quote better than the Facebook one. I think that's some sour grapes. Meta just spent an insane amount of money on the Metaverse and that's a dud. Microsoft just spent money on open AI and it is hot, undoubtedly hot. We've only been in the field with our current ETS survey for a week. So my caveat is it's preliminary data, but I don't care if it's preliminary data. (laughing) We're getting a sneak peek here at what is the number one net sentiment and mindshare leader in the entire machine-learning AI sector within a week. It's beating Data- >> 600. 600 in. >> It's beating Databricks. And we all know Databricks is a huge established enterprise company, not only in machine-learning AI, but it's in the top 10 in the entire survey. We have over 400 vendors in this survey. It's number eight overall, already. In a week. This is not hype. This is real. And I could go on the NLP stuff for a while. Not only here are we seeing it in open AI and machine-learning and AI, but we're seeing NLP in security. It's huge in email security. It's completely transforming that area. It's one of the reasons I thought Palo might take Abnormal out. They're doing such a great job with NLP in this email side, and also in the data prep tools. NLP is going to take out data prep tools. If we have time, I'll discuss that later. But yeah, this is, to me this is a no-brainer, and we're already seeing it in the data. >> Yeah, John Furrier called, you know, the ChatGPT introduction. He said it reminded him of the Netscape moment, when we all first saw Netscape Navigator and went, "Wow, it really could be transformative." All right, number six, the cloud expands to supercloud as edge computing accelerates and CloudFlare is a big winner in 2023. We've reported obviously on cloud, multi-cloud, supercloud and CloudFlare, basically saying what multi-cloud should have been. We pulled this quote from Atif Kahn, who is the founder and CTO of Alkira, thanks, one of the inbounds, thank you. "In 2023, highly distributed IT environments "will become more the norm "as organizations increasingly deploy hybrid cloud, "multi-cloud and edge settings..." Eric, from one of your round tables, "If my sources from edge computing are coming "from the cloud, that means I have my workloads "running in the cloud. "There is no one better than CloudFlare," That's a senior director of IT architecture at a huge financial firm. And then your analysis shows CloudFlare really growing in pervasion, that sort of market presence in the dataset, dramatically, to near 20%, leading, I think you had told me that they're even ahead of Google Cloud in terms of momentum right now. >> That was probably the biggest shock to me in our January 2023 tesis, which covers the public companies in the cloud computing sector. CloudFlare has now overtaken GCP in overall spending, and I was shocked by that. It's already extremely pervasive in networking, of course, for the edge networking side, and also in security. This is the number one leader in SaaSi, web access firewall, DDoS, bot protection, by your definition of supercloud, which we just did a couple of weeks ago, and I really enjoyed that by the way Dave, I think CloudFlare is the one that fits your definition best, because it's bringing all of these aspects together, and most importantly, it's cloud agnostic. It does not need to rely on Azure or AWS to do this. It has its own cloud. So I just think it's, when we look at your definition of supercloud, CloudFlare is the poster child. >> You know, what's interesting about that too, is a lot of people are poo-pooing CloudFlare, "Ah, it's, you know, really kind of not that sophisticated." "You don't have as many tools," but to your point, you're can have those tools in the cloud, Cloudflare's doing serverless on steroids, trying to keep things really simple, doing a phenomenal job at, you know, various locations around the world. And they're definitely one to watch. Somebody put them on my radar (laughing) a while ago and said, "Dave, you got to do a breaking analysis on CloudFlare." And so I want to thank that person. I can't really name them, 'cause they work inside of a giant hyperscaler. But- (Eric laughing) (Dave chuckling) >> Real quickly, if I can from a competitive perspective too, who else is there? They've already taken share from Akamai, and Fastly is their really only other direct comp, and they're not there. And these guys are in poll position and they're the only game in town right now. I just, I don't see it slowing down. >> I thought one of your comments from your roundtable I was reading, one of the folks said, you know, CloudFlare, if my workloads are in the cloud, they are, you know, dominant, they said not as strong with on-prem. And so Akamai is doing better there. I'm like, "Okay, where would you want to be?" (laughing) >> Yeah, which one of those two would you rather be? >> Right? Anyway, all right, let's move on. Number seven, blockchain continues to look for a home in the enterprise, but devs will slowly begin to adopt in 2023. You know, blockchains have got a lot of buzz, obviously crypto is, you know, the killer app for blockchain. Senior IT architect in financial services from your, one of your insight roundtables said quote, "For enterprises to adopt a new technology, "there have to be proven turnkey solutions. "My experience in talking with my peers are, "blockchain is still an open-source component "where you have to build around it." Now I want to thank Ravi Mayuram, who's the CTO of Couchbase sent in, you know, one of the predictions, he said, "DevOps will adopt blockchain, specifically Ethereum." And he referenced actually in his email to me, Solidity, which is the programming language for Ethereum, "will be in every DevOps pro's playbook, "mirroring the boom in machine-learning. "Newer programming languages like Solidity "will enter the toolkits of devs." His point there, you know, Solidity for those of you don't know, you know, Bitcoin is not programmable. Solidity, you know, came out and that was their whole shtick, and they've been improving that, and so forth. But it, Eric, it's true, it really hasn't found its home despite, you know, the potential for smart contracts. IBM's pushing it, VMware has had announcements, and others, really hasn't found its way in the enterprise yet. >> Yeah, and I got to be honest, I don't think it's going to, either. So when we did our top trends series, this was basically chosen as an anti-prediction, I would guess, that it just continues to not gain hold. And the reason why was that first comment, right? It's very much a niche solution that requires a ton of custom work around it. You can't just plug and play it. And at the end of the day, let's be very real what this technology is, it's a database ledger, and we already have database ledgers in the enterprise. So why is this a priority to move to a different database ledger? It's going to be very niche cases. I like the CTO comment from Couchbase about it being adopted by DevOps. I agree with that, but it has to be a DevOps in a very specific use case, and a very sophisticated use case in financial services, most likely. And that's not across the entire enterprise. So I just think it's still going to struggle to get its foothold for a little bit longer, if ever. >> Great, thanks. Okay, let's move on. Number eight, AWS Databricks, Google Snowflake lead the data charge with Microsoft. Keeping it simple. So let's unpack this a little bit. This is the shared accounts peer position for, I pulled data platforms in for analytics, machine-learning and AI and database. So I could grab all these accounts or these vendors and see how they compare in those three sectors. Analytics, machine-learning and database. Snowflake and Databricks, you know, they're on a crash course, as you and I have talked about. They're battling to be the single source of truth in analytics. They're, there's going to be a big focus. They're already started. It's going to be accelerated in 2023 on open formats. Iceberg, Python, you know, they're all the rage. We heard about Iceberg at Snowflake Summit, last summer or last June. Not a lot of people had heard of it, but of course the Databricks crowd, who knows it well. A lot of other open source tooling. There's a company called DBT Labs, which you're going to talk about in a minute. George Gilbert put them on our radar. We just had Tristan Handy, the CEO of DBT labs, on at supercloud last week. They are a new disruptor in data that's, they're essentially making, they're API-ifying, if you will, KPIs inside the data warehouse and dramatically simplifying that whole data pipeline. So really, you know, the ETL guys should be shaking in their boots with them. Coming back to the slide. Google really remains focused on BigQuery adoption. Customers have complained to me that they would like to use Snowflake with Google's AI tools, but they're being forced to go to BigQuery. I got to ask Google about that. AWS continues to stitch together its bespoke data stores, that's gone down that "Right tool for the right job" path. David Foyer two years ago said, "AWS absolutely is going to have to solve that problem." We saw them start to do it in, at Reinvent, bringing together NoETL between Aurora and Redshift, and really trying to simplify those worlds. There's going to be more of that. And then Microsoft, they're just making it cheap and easy to use their stuff, you know, despite some of the complaints that we hear in the community, you know, about things like Cosmos, but Eric, your take? >> Yeah, my concern here is that Snowflake and Databricks are fighting each other, and it's allowing AWS and Microsoft to kind of catch up against them, and I don't know if that's the right move for either of those two companies individually, Azure and AWS are building out functionality. Are they as good? No they're not. The other thing to remember too is that AWS and Azure get paid anyway, because both Databricks and Snowflake run on top of 'em. So (laughing) they're basically collecting their toll, while these two fight it out with each other, and they build out functionality. I think they need to stop focusing on each other, a little bit, and think about the overall strategy. Now for Databricks, we know they came out first as a machine-learning AI tool. They were known better for that spot, and now they're really trying to play catch-up on that data storage compute spot, and inversely for Snowflake, they were killing it with the compute separation from storage, and now they're trying to get into the MLAI spot. I actually wouldn't be surprised to see them make some sort of acquisition. Frank Slootman has been a little bit quiet, in my opinion there. The other thing to mention is your comment about DBT Labs. If we look at our emerging technology survey, last survey when this came out, DBT labs, number one leader in that data integration space, I'm going to just pull it up real quickly. It looks like they had a 33% overall net sentiment to lead data analytics integration. So they are clearly growing, it's fourth straight survey consecutively that they've grown. The other name we're seeing there a little bit is Cribl, but DBT labs is by far the number one player in this space. >> All right. Okay, cool. Moving on, let's go to number nine. With Automation mixer resurgence in 2023, we're showing again data. The x axis is overlap or presence in the dataset, and the vertical axis is shared net score. Net score is a measure of spending momentum. As always, you've seen UI path and Microsoft Power Automate up until the right, that red line, that 40% line is generally considered elevated. UI path is really separating, creating some distance from Automation Anywhere, they, you know, previous quarters they were much closer. Microsoft Power Automate came on the scene in a big way, they loom large with this "Good enough" approach. I will say this, I, somebody sent me a results of a (indistinct) survey, which showed UiPath actually had more mentions than Power Automate, which was surprising, but I think that's not been the case in the ETR data set. We're definitely seeing a shift from back office to front soft office kind of workloads. Having said that, software testing is emerging as a mainstream use case, we're seeing ML and AI become embedded in end-to-end automations, and low-code is serving the line of business. And so this, we think, is going to increasingly have appeal to organizations in the coming year, who want to automate as much as possible and not necessarily, we've seen a lot of layoffs in tech, and people... You're going to have to fill the gaps with automation. That's a trend that's going to continue. >> Yep, agreed. At first that comment about Microsoft Power Automate having less citations than UiPath, that's shocking to me. I'm looking at my chart right here where Microsoft Power Automate was cited by over 60% of our entire survey takers, and UiPath at around 38%. Now don't get me wrong, 38% pervasion's fantastic, but you know you're not going to beat an entrenched Microsoft. So I don't really know where that comment came from. So UiPath, looking at it alone, it's doing incredibly well. It had a huge rebound in its net score this last survey. It had dropped going through the back half of 2022, but we saw a big spike in the last one. So it's got a net score of over 55%. A lot of people citing adoption and increasing. So that's really what you want to see for a name like this. The problem is that just Microsoft is doing its playbook. At the end of the day, I'm going to do a POC, why am I going to pay more for UiPath, or even take on another separate bill, when we know everyone's consolidating vendors, if my license already includes Microsoft Power Automate? It might not be perfect, it might not be as good, but what I'm hearing all the time is it's good enough, and I really don't want another invoice. >> Right. So how does UiPath, you know, and Automation Anywhere, how do they compete with that? Well, the way they compete with it is they got to have a better product. They got a product that's 10 times better. You know, they- >> Right. >> they're not going to compete based on where the lowest cost, Microsoft's got that locked up, or where the easiest to, you know, Microsoft basically give it away for free, and that's their playbook. So that's, you know, up to UiPath. UiPath brought on Rob Ensslin, I've interviewed him. Very, very capable individual, is now Co-CEO. So he's kind of bringing that adult supervision in, and really tightening up the go to market. So, you know, we know this company has been a rocket ship, and so getting some control on that and really getting focused like a laser, you know, could be good things ahead there for that company. Okay. >> One of the problems, if I could real quick Dave, is what the use cases are. When we first came out with RPA, everyone was super excited about like, "No, UiPath is going to be great for super powerful "projects, use cases." That's not what RPA is being used for. As you mentioned, it's being used for mundane tasks, so it's not automating complex things, which I think UiPath was built for. So if you were going to get UiPath, and choose that over Microsoft, it's going to be 'cause you're doing it for more powerful use case, where it is better. But the problem is that's not where the enterprise is using it. The enterprise are using this for base rote tasks, and simply, Microsoft Power Automate can do that. >> Yeah, it's interesting. I've had people on theCube that are both Microsoft Power Automate customers and UiPath customers, and I've asked them, "Well you know, "how do you differentiate between the two?" And they've said to me, "Look, our users and personal productivity users, "they like Power Automate, "they can use it themselves, and you know, "it doesn't take a lot of, you know, support on our end." The flip side is you could do that with UiPath, but like you said, there's more of a focus now on end-to-end enterprise automation and building out those capabilities. So it's increasingly a value play, and that's going to be obviously the challenge going forward. Okay, my last one, and then I think you've got some bonus ones. Number 10, hybrid events are the new category. Look it, if I can get a thousand inbounds that are largely self-serving, I can do my own here, 'cause we're in the events business. (Eric chuckling) Here's the prediction though, and this is a trend we're seeing, the number of physical events is going to dramatically increase. That might surprise people, but most of the big giant events are going to get smaller. The exception is AWS with Reinvent, I think Snowflake's going to continue to grow. So there are examples of physical events that are growing, but generally, most of the big ones are getting smaller, and there's going to be many more smaller intimate regional events and road shows. These micro-events, they're going to be stitched together. Digital is becoming a first class citizen, so people really got to get their digital acts together, and brands are prioritizing earned media, and they're beginning to build their own news networks, going direct to their customers. And so that's a trend we see, and I, you know, we're right in the middle of it, Eric, so you know we're going to, you mentioned RSA, I think that's perhaps going to be one of those crazy ones that continues to grow. It's shrunk, and then it, you know, 'cause last year- >> Yeah, it did shrink. >> right, it was the last one before the pandemic, and then they sort of made another run at it last year. It was smaller but it was very vibrant, and I think this year's going to be huge. Global World Congress is another one, we're going to be there end of Feb. That's obviously a big big show, but in general, the brands and the technology vendors, even Oracle is going to scale down. I don't know about Salesforce. We'll see. You had a couple of bonus predictions. Quantum and maybe some others? Bring us home. >> Yeah, sure. I got a few more. I think we touched upon one, but I definitely think the data prep tools are facing extinction, unfortunately, you know, the Talons Informatica is some of those names. The problem there is that the BI tools are kind of including data prep into it already. You know, an example of that is Tableau Prep Builder, and then in addition, Advanced NLP is being worked in as well. ThoughtSpot, Intelius, both often say that as their selling point, Tableau has Ask Data, Click has Insight Bot, so you don't have to really be intelligent on data prep anymore. A regular business user can just self-query, using either the search bar, or even just speaking into what it needs, and these tools are kind of doing the data prep for it. I don't think that's a, you know, an out in left field type of prediction, but it's the time is nigh. The other one I would also state is that I think knowledge graphs are going to break through this year. Neo4j in our survey is growing in pervasion in Mindshare. So more and more people are citing it, AWS Neptune's getting its act together, and we're seeing that spending intentions are growing there. Tiger Graph is also growing in our survey sample. I just think that the time is now for knowledge graphs to break through, and if I had to do one more, I'd say real-time streaming analytics moves from the very, very rich big enterprises to downstream, to more people are actually going to be moving towards real-time streaming, again, because the data prep tools and the data pipelines have gotten easier to use, and I think the ROI on real-time streaming is obviously there. So those are three that didn't make the cut, but I thought deserved an honorable mention. >> Yeah, I'm glad you did. Several weeks ago, we did an analyst prediction roundtable, if you will, a cube session power panel with a number of data analysts and that, you know, streaming, real-time streaming was top of mind. So glad you brought that up. Eric, as always, thank you very much. I appreciate the time you put in beforehand. I know it's been crazy, because you guys are wrapping up, you know, the last quarter survey in- >> Been a nuts three weeks for us. (laughing) >> job. I love the fact that you're doing, you know, the ETS survey now, I think it's quarterly now, right? Is that right? >> Yep. >> Yep. So that's phenomenal. >> Four times a year. I'll be happy to jump on with you when we get that done. I know you were really impressed with that last time. >> It's unbelievable. This is so much data at ETR. Okay. Hey, that's a wrap. Thanks again. >> Take care Dave. Good seeing you. >> All right, many thanks to our team here, Alex Myerson as production, he manages the podcast force. Ken Schiffman as well is a critical component of our East Coast studio. Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight help get the word out on social media and in our newsletters. And Rob Hoof is our editor-in-chief. He's at siliconangle.com. He's just a great editing for us. Thank you all. Remember all these episodes that are available as podcasts, wherever you listen, podcast is doing great. Just search "Breaking analysis podcast." Really appreciate you guys listening. I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com, or you can email me directly if you want to get in touch, david.vellante@siliconangle.com. That's how I got all these. I really appreciate it. I went through every single one with a yellow highlighter. It took some time, (laughing) but I appreciate it. You could DM me at dvellante, or comment on our LinkedIn post and please check out etr.ai. Its data is amazing. Best survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Vellante for theCube Insights, powered by ETR. Thanks for watching, and we'll see you next time on "Breaking Analysis." (upbeat music beginning) (upbeat music ending)

>> Narrator: From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto and Boston bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is breaking analysis with Dave Vellante >> Enterprise tech practitioners, like most of us they want to make their lives easier so they can focus on delivering more value to their businesses. And to do so, they want to tap best of breed services in the public cloud, but at the same time connect their on-prem intellectual property to emerging applications which drive top line revenue and bottom line profits. But creating a consistent experience across clouds and on-prem estates has been an elusive capability for most organizations, forcing trade-offs and injecting friction into the system. The need to create seamless experiences is clear and the technology industry is starting to respond with platforms, architectures, and visions of what we've called the Supercloud. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon Cube Insights powered by ETR. In this breaking analysis we give you a preview of Supercloud 2, the second event of its kind that we've had on the topic. Yes, folks that's right Supercloud 2 is here. As of this recording, it's just about four days away 33 guests, 21 sessions, combining live discussions and fireside chats from theCUBE's Palo Alto Studio with prerecorded conversations on the future of cloud and data. You can register for free at supercloud.world. And we are super excited about the Supercloud 2 lineup of guests whereas Supercloud 22 in August, was all about refining the definition of Supercloud testing its technical feasibility and understanding various deployment models. Supercloud 2 features practitioners, technologists and analysts discussing what customers need with real-world examples of Supercloud and will expose thinking around a new breed of cross-cloud apps, data apps, if you will that change the way machines and humans interact with each other. Now the example we'd use if you think about applications today, say a CRM system, sales reps, what are they doing? They're entering data into opportunities they're choosing products they're importing contacts, et cetera. And sure the machine can then take all that data and spit out a forecast by rep, by region, by product, et cetera. But today's applications are largely about filling in forms and or codifying processes. In the future, the Supercloud community sees a new breed of applications emerging where data resides on different clouds, in different data storages, databases, Lakehouse, et cetera. And the machine uses AI to inspect the e-commerce system the inventory data, supply chain information and other systems, and puts together a plan without any human intervention whatsoever. Think about a system that orchestrates people, places and things like an Uber for business. So at Supercloud 2, you'll hear about this vision along with some of today's challenges facing practitioners. Zhamak Dehghani, the founder of Data Mesh is a headliner. Kit Colbert also is headlining. He laid out at the first Supercloud an initial architecture for what that's going to look like. That was last August. And he's going to present his most current thinking on the topic. Veronika Durgin of Sachs will be featured and talk about data sharing across clouds and you know what she needs in the future. One of the main highlights of Supercloud 2 is a dive into Walmart's Supercloud. Other featured practitioners include Western Union Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Warner Media. We've got deep, deep technology dives with folks like Bob Muglia, David Flynn Tristan Handy of DBT Labs, Nir Zuk, the founder of Palo Alto Networks focused on security. Thomas Hazel, who's going to talk about a new type of database for Supercloud. It's several analysts including Keith Townsend Maribel Lopez, George Gilbert, Sanjeev Mohan and so many more guests, we don't have time to list them all. They're all up on supercloud.world with a full agenda, so you can check that out. Now let's take a look at some of the things that we're exploring in more detail starting with the Walmart Cloud native platform, they call it WCNP. We definitely see this as a Supercloud and we dig into it with Jack Greenfield. He's the head of architecture at Walmart. Here's a quote from Jack. "WCNP is an implementation of Kubernetes for the Walmart ecosystem. We've taken Kubernetes off the shelf as open source." By the way, they do the same thing with OpenStack. "And we have integrated it with a number of foundational services that provide other aspects of our computational environment. Kubernetes off the shelf doesn't do everything." And so what Walmart chose to do, they took a do-it-yourself approach to build a Supercloud for a variety of reasons that Jack will explain, along with Walmart's so-called triplet architecture connecting on-prem, Azure and GCP. No surprise, there's no Amazon at Walmart for obvious reasons. And what they do is they create a common experience for devs across clouds. Jack is going to talk about how Walmart is evolving its Supercloud in the future. You don't want to miss that. Now, next, let's take a look at how Veronica Durgin of SAKS thinks about data sharing across clouds. Data sharing we think is a potential killer use case for Supercloud. In fact, let's hear it in Veronica's own words. Please play the clip. >> How do we talk to each other? And more importantly, how do we data share? You know, I work with data, you know this is what I do. So if you know I want to get data from a company that's using, say Google, how do we share it in a smooth way where it doesn't have to be this crazy I don't know, SFTP file moving? So that's where I think Supercloud comes to me in my mind, is like practical applications. How do we create that mesh, that network that we can easily share data with each other? >> Now data mesh is a possible architectural approach that will enable more facile data sharing and the monetization of data products. You'll hear Zhamak Dehghani live in studio talking about what standards are missing to make this vision a reality across the Supercloud. Now one of the other things that we're really excited about is digging deeper into the right approach for Supercloud adoption. And we're going to share a preview of a debate that's going on right now in the community. Bob Muglia, former CEO of Snowflake and Microsoft Exec was kind enough to spend some time looking at the community's supercloud definition and he felt that it needed to be simplified. So in near real time he came up with the following definition that we're showing here. I'll read it. "A Supercloud is a platform that provides programmatically consistent services hosted on heterogeneous cloud providers." So not only did Bob simplify the initial definition he's stressed that the Supercloud is a platform versus an architecture implying that the platform provider eg Snowflake, VMware, Databricks, Cohesity, et cetera is responsible for determining the architecture. Now interestingly in the shared Google doc that the working group uses to collaborate on the supercloud de definition, Dr. Nelu Mihai who is actually building a Supercloud responded as follows to Bob's assertion "We need to avoid creating many Supercloud platforms with their own architectures. If we do that, then we create other proprietary clouds on top of existing ones. We need to define an architecture of how Supercloud interfaces with all other clouds. What is the information model? What is the execution model and how users will interact with Supercloud?" What does this seemingly nuanced point tell us and why does it matter? Well, history suggests that de facto standards will emerge more quickly to resolve real world practitioner problems and catch on more quickly than consensus-based architectures and standards-based architectures. But in the long run, the ladder may serve customers better. So we'll be exploring this topic in more detail in Supercloud 2, and of course we'd love to hear what you think platform, architecture, both? Now one of the real technical gurus that we'll have in studio at Supercloud two is David Flynn. He's one of the people behind the the movement that enabled enterprise flash adoption, that craze. And he did that with Fusion IO and he is now working on a system to enable read write data access to any user in any application in any data center or on any cloud anywhere. So think of this company as a Supercloud enabler. Allow me to share an excerpt from a conversation David Flore and I had with David Flynn last year. He as well gave a lot of thought to the Supercloud definition and was really helpful with an opinionated point of view. He said something to us that was, we thought relevant. "What is the operating system for a decentralized cloud? The main two functions of an operating system or an operating environment are one the process scheduler and two, the file system. The strongest argument for supercloud is made when you go down to the platform layer and talk about it as an operating environment on which you can run all forms of applications." So a couple of implications here that will be exploring with David Flynn in studio. First we're inferring from his comment that he's in the platform camp where the platform owner is responsible for the architecture and there are obviously trade-offs there and benefits but we'll have to clarify that with him. And second, he's basically saying, you kill the concept the further you move up the stack. So the weak, the further you move the stack the weaker the supercloud argument becomes because it's just becoming SaaS. Now this is something we're going to explore to better understand is thinking on this, but also whether the existing notion of SaaS is changing and whether or not a new breed of Supercloud apps will emerge. Which brings us to this really interesting fellow that George Gilbert and I RIFed with ahead of Supercloud two. Tristan Handy, he's the founder and CEO of DBT Labs and he has a highly opinionated and technical mind. Here's what he said, "One of the things that we still don't know how to API-ify is concepts that live inside of your data warehouse inside of your data lake. These are core concepts that the business should be able to create applications around very easily. In fact, that's not the case because it involves a lot of data engineering pipeline and other work to make these available. So if you really want to make it easy to create these data experiences for users you need to have an ability to describe these metrics and then to turn them into APIs to make them accessible to application developers who have literally no idea how they're calculated behind the scenes and they don't need to." A lot of implications to this statement that will explore at Supercloud two versus Jamma Dani's data mesh comes into play here with her critique of hyper specialized data pipeline experts with little or no domain knowledge. Also the need for simplified self-service infrastructure which Kit Colbert is likely going to touch upon. Veronica Durgin of SAKS and her ideal state for data shearing along with Harveer Singh of Western Union. They got to deal with 200 locations around the world in data privacy issues, data sovereignty how do you share data safely? Same with Nick Taylor of Ionis Pharmaceutical. And not to blow your mind but Thomas Hazel and Bob Muglia deposit that to make data apps a reality across the Supercloud you have to rethink everything. You can't just let in memory databases and caching architectures take care of everything in a brute force manner. Rather you have to get down to really detailed levels even things like how data is laid out on disk, ie flash and think about rewriting applications for the Supercloud and the MLAI era. All of this and more at Supercloud two which wouldn't be complete without some data. So we pinged our friends from ETR Eric Bradley and Darren Bramberm to see if they had any data on Supercloud that we could tap. And so we're going to be analyzing a number of the players as well at Supercloud two. Now, many of you are familiar with this graphic here we show some of the players involved in delivering or enabling Supercloud-like capabilities. On the Y axis is spending momentum and on the horizontal accesses market presence or pervasiveness in the data. So netscore versus what they call overlap or end in the data. And the table insert shows how the dots are plotted now not to steal ETR's thunder but the first point is you really can't have supercloud without the hyperscale cloud platforms which is shown on this graphic. But the exciting aspect of Supercloud is the opportunity to build value on top of that hyperscale infrastructure. Snowflake here continues to show strong spending velocity as those Databricks, Hashi, Rubrik. VMware Tanzu, which we all put under the magnifying glass after the Broadcom announcements, is also showing momentum. Unfortunately due to a scheduling conflict we weren't able to get Red Hat on the program but they're clearly a player here. And we've put Cohesity and Veeam on the chart as well because backup is a likely use case across clouds and on-premises. And now one other call out that we drill down on at Supercloud two is CloudFlare, which actually uses the term supercloud maybe in a different way. They look at Supercloud really as you know, serverless on steroids. And so the data brains at ETR will have more to say on this topic at Supercloud two along with many others. Okay, so why should you attend Supercloud two? What's in it for me kind of thing? So first of all, if you're a practitioner and you want to understand what the possibilities are for doing cross-cloud services for monetizing data how your peers are doing data sharing, how some of your peers are actually building out a Supercloud you're going to get real world input from practitioners. If you're a technologist, you're trying to figure out various ways to solve problems around data, data sharing, cross-cloud service deployment there's going to be a number of deep technology experts that are going to share how they're doing it. We're also going to drill down with Walmart into a practical example of Supercloud with some other examples of how practitioners are dealing with cross-cloud complexity. Some of them, by the way, are kind of thrown up their hands and saying, Hey, we're going mono cloud. And we'll talk about the potential implications and dangers and risks of doing that. And also some of the benefits. You know, there's a question, right? Is Supercloud the same wine new bottle or is it truly something different that can drive substantive business value? So look, go to Supercloud.world it's January 17th at 9:00 AM Pacific. You can register for free and participate directly in the program. Okay, that's a wrap. I want to give a shout out to the Supercloud supporters. VMware has been a great partner as our anchor sponsor Chaos Search Proximo, and Alura as well. For contributing to the effort I want to thank Alex Myerson who's on production and manages the podcast. Ken Schiffman is his supporting cast as well. Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight to help get the word out on social media and at our newsletters. And Rob Ho is our editor-in-chief over at Silicon Angle. Thank you all. Remember, these episodes are all available as podcast. Wherever you listen we really appreciate the support that you've given. We just saw some stats from from Buzz Sprout, we hit the top 25% we're almost at 400,000 downloads last year. So really appreciate your participation. All you got to do is search Breaking Analysis podcast and you'll find those I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. Or if you want to get ahold of me you can email me directly at David.Vellante@siliconangle.com or dm me DVellante or comment on our LinkedIn post. I want you to check out etr.ai. They've got the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE Insights, powered by ETR. Thanks for watching. We'll see you next week at Supercloud two or next time on breaking analysis. (light music)

(upbeat music) >> From theCube Studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data driven insights from theCube and ETR. This is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> While by no means a safe haven, the cybersecurity sector has outpaced the broader tech market by a meaningful margin, that is up until very recently. Cybersecurity remains the number one technology priority for the C-suite, but as we've previously reported the CISO's budget has constraints just like other technology investments. Recent trends show that economic headwinds have elongated sales cycles, pushed deals into future quarters, and just like other tech initiatives, are pacing cybersecurity investments and breaking them into smaller chunks. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon Cube Insights powered by ETR. In this Breaking Analysis we explain how cybersecurity trends are reverting to the mean and tracking more closely with other technology investments. We'll make a couple of valuation comparisons to show the magnitude of the challenge and which cyber firms are feeling the heat, which aren't. There are some exceptions. We'll then show the latest survey data from ETR to quantify the contraction in spending momentum and close with a glimpse of the landscape of emerging cybersecurity companies, the private companies that could be ripe for acquisition, consolidation, or disruptive to the broader market. First, let's take a look at the recent patterns for cyber stocks relative to the broader tech market as a benchmark, as an indicator. Here's a year to date comparison of the bug ETF, which comprises a basket of cyber security names, and we compare that with the tech heavy NASDAQ composite. Notice that on April 13th of this year the cyber ETF was actually in positive territory while the NAS was down nearly 14%. Now by August 16th, the green turned red for cyber stocks but they still meaningfully outpaced the broader tech market by more than 950 basis points as of December 2nd that Delta had contracted. As you can see, the cyber ETF is now down nearly 25%, year to date, while the NASDAQ is down 27% and change. Now take a look at just how far a few of the high profile cybersecurity names have fallen. Here are six security firms that we've been tracking closely since before the pandemic. We've been, you know, tracking dozens but let's just take a look at this data and the subset. We show for comparison the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ, again, just for reference, they're both up since right before the pandemic. They're up relative to right before the pandemic, and then during the pandemic the S&P shot up more than 40%, relative to its pre pandemic level, around February is what we're using for the pre pandemic level, and the NASDAQ peaked at around 65% higher than that February level. They're now down 85% and 71% of their previous. So they're at 85% and 71% respectively from their pandemic highs. You compare that to these six companies, Splunk, which was and still is working through a transition is well below its pre pandemic market value and 44, it's 44% of its pre pandemic high as of last Friday. Palo Alto Networks is the most interesting here, in that it had been facing challenges prior to the pandemic related to a pivot to the Cloud which we reported on at the time. But as we said at that time we believe the company would sort out its Cloud transition, and its go to market challenges, and sales compensation issues, which it did as you can see. And its valuation jumped from 24 billion prior to Covid to 56 billion, and it's holding 93% of its peak value. Its revenue run rate is now over 6 billion with a healthy growth rate of 24% expected for the next quarter. Similarly, Fortinet has done relatively well holding 71% of its peak Covid value, with a healthy 34% revenue guide for the coming quarter. Now, Okta has been the biggest disappointment, a darling of the pandemic Okta's communication snafu, with what was actually a pretty benign hack combined with difficulty absorbing its 7 billion off zero acquisition, knocked the company off track. Its valuation has dropped by 35 billion since its peak during the pandemic, and that's after a nice beat and bounce back quarter just announced by Okta. Now, in our view Okta remains a viable long-term leader in identity. However, its recent fiscal 24 revenue guide was exceedingly conservative at around 16% growth. So either the company is sandbagging, or has such poor visibility that it wants to be like super cautious or maybe it's actually seeing a dramatic slowdown in its business momentum. After all, this is a company that not long ago was putting up 50% plus revenue growth rates. So it's one that bears close watching. CrowdStrike is another big name that we've been talking about on Breaking Analysis for quite some time. It like Okta has led the industry in a key ETR performance indicator that measures customer spending momentum. Just last week, CrowdStrike announced revenue increased more than 50% but new ARR was soft and the company guided conservatively. Not surprisingly, the stock got absolutely crushed as CrowdStrike blamed tepid demand from smaller and midsize firms. Many analysts believe that competition from Microsoft was one factor along with cautious spending amongst those midsize and smaller customers. Notably, large customers remain active. So we'll see if this is a longer term trend or an anomaly. Zscaler is another company in the space that we've reported having great customer spending momentum from the ETR data. But even though the company beat expectations for its recent quarter, like other companies its Outlook was conservative. So other than Palo Alto, and to a lesser extent Fortinet, these companies and others that we're not showing here are feeling the economic pinch and it shows in the compression of value. CrowdStrike, for example, had a 70 billion valuation at one point during the pandemic Zscaler top 50 billion, Okta 45 billion. Now, having said that Palo Alto Networks, Fortinet, CrowdStrike, and Zscaler are all still trading well above their pre pandemic levels that we tracked back in February of 2020. All right, let's go now back to ETR'S January survey and take a look at how much things have changed since the beginning of the year. Remember, this is obviously pre Ukraine, and pre all the concerns about the economic headwinds but here's an X Y graph that shows a net score, or spending momentum on the y-axis, and market presence on the x-axis. The red dotted line at 40% on the vertical indicates a highly elevated net score. Anything above that we think is, you know, super elevated. Now, we filtered the data here to show only those companies with more than 50 responses in the ETR survey. Still really crowded. Note that there were around 20 companies above that red 40% mark, which is a very, you know, high number. It's a, it's a crowded market, but lots of companies with, you know, positive momentum. Now let's jump ahead to the most recent October survey and take a look at what, what's happening. Same graphic plotting, spending momentum, and market presence, and look at the number of companies above that red line and how it's been squashed. It's really compressing, it's still a crowded market, it's still, you know, plenty of green, but the number of companies above 40% that, that key mark has gone from around 20 firms down to about five or six. And it speaks to that compression and IT spending, and of course the elongated sales cycles pushing deals out, taking them in smaller chunks. I can't tell you how many conversations with customers I had, at last week at Reinvent underscoring this exact same trend. The buyers are getting pressure from their CFOs to slow things down, do more with less and, and, and prioritize projects to those that absolutely are critical to driving revenue or cutting costs. And that's rippling through all sectors, including cyber. Now, let's do a bit more playing around with the ETR data and take a look at those companies with more than a hundred citations in the survey this quarter. So N, greater than or equal to a hundred. Now remember the followers of Breaking Analysis know that each quarter we take a look at those, what we call four star security firms. That is, those are the, that are in, that hit the top 10 for both spending momentum, net score, and the N, the mentions in the survey, the presence, the pervasiveness in the survey, and that's what we show here. The left most chart is sorted by spending momentum or net score, and the right hand chart by shared N, or the number of mentions in the survey, that pervasiveness metric. that solid red line denotes the cutoff point at the top 10. And you'll note we've actually cut it off at 11 to account for Auth 0, which is now part of Okta, and is going through a go to market transition, you know, with the company, they're kind of restructuring sales so they can take advantage of that. So starting on the left with spending momentum, again, net score, Microsoft leads all vendors, typical Microsoft, very prominent, although it hadn't always done so, it, for a while, CrowdStrike and Okta were, were taking the top spot, now it's Microsoft. CrowdStrike, still always near the top, but note that CyberArk and Cloudflare have cracked the top five in Okta, which as I just said was consistently at the top, has dropped well off its previous highs. You'll notice that Palo Alto Network Palo Alto Networks with a 38% net score, just below that magic 40% number, is healthy, especially as you look over to the right hand chart. Take a look at Palo Alto with an N of 395. It is the largest of the independent pure play security firms, and has a very healthy net score, although one caution is that net score has dropped considerably since the beginning of the year, which is the case for most of the top 10 names. The only exception is Fortinet, they're the only ones that saw an increase since January in spending momentum as ETR measures it. Now this brings us to the four star security firms, that is those that hit the top 10 in both net score on the left hand side and market presence on the right hand side. So it's Microsoft, Palo Alto, CrowdStrike, Okta, still there even not accounting for a Auth 0, just Okta on its own. If you put in Auth 0, it's, it's even stronger. Adding then in Fortinet and Zscaler. So Microsoft, Palo Alto, CrowdStrike, Okta, Fortinet, and Zscaler. And as we've mentioned since January, only Fortinet has shown an increase in net score since, since that time, again, since the January survey. Now again, this talks to the compression in spending. Now one of the big themes we hear constantly in cybersecurity is the market is overcrowded. Everybody talks about that, me included. The implication there, is there's a lot of room for consolidation and that consolidation can come in the form of M&A, or it can come in the form of people consolidating onto a single platform, and retiring some other vendors, and getting rid of duplicate vendors. We're hearing that as a big theme as well. Now, as we saw in the previous, previous chart, this is a very crowded market and we've seen lots of consolidation in 2022, in the form of M&A. Literally hundreds of M&A deals, with some of the largest companies going private. SailPoint, KnowBe4, Barracuda, Mandiant, Fedora, these are multi billion dollar acquisitions, or at least billion dollars and up, and many of them multi-billion, for these companies, and hundreds more acquisitions in the cyberspace, now less you think the pond is overfished, here's a chart from ETR of emerging tech companies in the cyber security industry. This data comes from ETR's Emerging Technologies Survey, ETS, which is this diamond in a rough that I found a couple quarters ago, and it's ripe with companies that are candidates for M&A. Many would've liked, many of these companies would've liked to, gotten to the public markets during the pandemic, but they, you know, couldn't get there. They weren't ready. So the graph, you know, similar to the previous one, but different, it shows net sentiment on the vertical axis and that's a measurement of, of, of intent to adopt against a mind share on the X axis, which measures, measures the awareness of the vendor in the community. So this is specifically a survey that ETR goes out and, and, and fields only to track those emerging tech companies that are private companies. Now, some of the standouts in Mindshare, are OneTrust, BeyondTrust, Tanium and Endpoint, Net Scope, which we've talked about in previous Breaking Analysis. 1Password, which has been acquisitive on its own. In identity, the managed security service provider, Arctic Wolf Network, a company we've also covered, we've had their CEO on. We've talked about MSSPs as a real trend, particularly in small and medium sized business, we'll come back to that, Sneek, you know, kind of high flyer in both app security and containers, and you can just see the number of companies in the space this huge and it just keeps growing. Now, just to make it a bit easier on the eyes we filtered the data on these companies with with those, and isolated on those with more than a hundred responses only within the survey. And that's what we show here. Some of the names that we just mentioned are a bit easier to see, but these are the ones that really stand out in ERT, ETS, survey of private companies, OneTrust, BeyondTrust, Taniam, Netscope, which is in Cloud, 1Password, Arctic Wolf, Sneek, BitSight, SecurityScorecard, HackerOne, Code42, and Exabeam, and Sim. All of these hit the ETS survey with more than a hundred responses by, by the IT practitioners. Okay, so these firms, you know, maybe they do some M&A on their own. We've seen that with Sneek, as I said, with 1Password has been inquisitive, as have others. Now these companies with the larger footprint, these private companies, will likely be candidate for both buying companies and eventually going public when the markets settle down a bit. So again, no shortage of players to affect consolidation, both buyers and sellers. Okay, so let's finish with some key questions that we're watching. CrowdStrike in particular on its earnings calls cited softness from smaller buyers. Is that because these smaller buyers have stopped adopting? If so, are they more at risk, or are they tactically moving toward the easy button, aka, Microsoft's good enough approach. What does that mean for the market if smaller company cohorts continue to soften? How about MSSPs? Will companies continue to outsource, or pause on on that, as well as try to free up, to try to free up some budget? Adam Celiski at Reinvent last week said, "If you want to save money the Cloud's the best place to do it." Is the cloud the best place to save money in cyber? Well, it would seem that way from the standpoint of controlling budgets with lots of, lots of optionality. You could dial up and dial down services, you know, or does the Cloud add another layer of complexity that has to be understood and managed by Devs, for example? Now, consolidation should favor the likes of Palo Alto and CrowdStrike, cause they're platform players, and some of the larger players as well, like Cisco, how about IBM and of course Microsoft. Will that happen? And how will economic uncertainty impact the risk equation, a particular concern is increase of tax on vulnerable sectors of the population, like the elderly. How will companies and governments protect them from scams? And finally, how many cybersecurity companies can actually remain independent in the slingshot economy? In so many ways the market is still strong, it's just that expectations got ahead of themselves, and now as earnings forecast come, come, come down and come down to earth, it's going to basically come down to who can execute, generate cash, and keep enough runway to get through the knothole. And the one certainty is nobody really knows how tight that knothole really is. All right, let's call it a wrap. Next week we dive deeper into Palo Alto Networks, and take a look at how and why that company has held up so well and what to expect at Ignite, Palo Alto's big user conference coming up later this month in Las Vegas. We'll be there with theCube. Okay, many thanks to Alex Myerson on production and manages the podcast, Ken Schiffman as well, as our newest edition to our Boston studio. Great to have you Ken. Kristin Martin and Cheryl Knight help get the word out on social media and in our newsletters. And Rob Hof is our EIC over at Silicon Angle. He does some great editing for us. Thank you to all. Remember these episodes are all available as podcasts. Wherever you listen, just search Breaking Analysis podcast. I publish each week on wikibond.com and siliconangle.com, or you can email me directly David.vellante@siliconangle.com or DM me @DVellante, or comment on our LinkedIn posts. Please do checkout etr.ai, they got the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Vellante for theCube Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching, and we'll see you next time on Breaking Analysis. (upbeat music)

>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto and Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR, this is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> This past week we saw two of the Big 3 cloud providers present the latest update on their respective cloud visions, their business progress, their announcements and innovations. The content at these events had many overlapping themes, including modern cloud infrastructure at global scale, applying advanced machine intelligence, AKA AI, end-to-end data platforms, collaboration software. They talked a lot about the future of work automation. And they gave us a little taste, each company of the Metaverse Web 3.0 and much more. Despite these striking similarities, the differences between these two cloud platforms and that of AWS remains significant. With Microsoft leveraging its massive application software footprint to dominate virtually all markets and Google doing everything in its power to keep up with the frenetic pace of today's cloud innovation, which was set into motion a decade and a half ago by AWS. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon CUBE Insights, powered by ETR. In this Breaking Analysis, we unpack the immense amount of content presented by the CEOs of Microsoft and Google Cloud at Microsoft Ignite and Google Cloud Next. We'll also quantify with ETR survey data the relative position of these two cloud giants in four key sectors: cloud IaaS, BI analytics, data platforms and collaboration software. Now one thing was clear this past week, hybrid events are the thing. Google Cloud Next took place live over a 24-hour period in six cities around the world, with the main gathering in New York City. Microsoft Ignite, which normally is attended by 30,000 people, had a smaller event in Seattle, in person with a virtual audience around the world. AWS re:Invent, of course, is much different. Yes, there's a virtual component at re:Invent, but it's all about a big live audience gathering the week after Thanksgiving, in the first week of December in Las Vegas. Regardless, Satya Nadella keynote address was prerecorded. It was highly produced and substantive. It was visionary, energetic with a strong message that Azure was a platform to allow customers to build their digital businesses. Doing more with less, which was a key theme of his. Nadella covered a lot of ground, starting with infrastructure from the compute, highlighting a collaboration with Arm-based, Ampere processors. New block storage, 60 regions, 175,000 miles of fiber cables around the world. He presented a meaningful multi-cloud message with Azure Arc to support on-prem and edge workloads, as well as of course the public cloud. And talked about confidential computing at the infrastructure level, a theme we hear from all cloud vendors. He then went deeper into the end-to-end data platform that Microsoft is building from the core data stores to analytics, to governance and the myriad tooling Microsoft offers. AI was next with a big focus on automation, AI, training models. He showed demos of machines coding and fixing code and machines automatically creating designs for creative workers and how Power Automate, Microsoft's RPA tooling, would combine with Microsoft Syntex to understand documents and provide standard ways for organizations to communicate with those documents. There was of course a big focus on Azure as developer cloud platform with GitHub Copilot as a linchpin using AI to assist coders in low-code and no-code innovations that are coming down the pipe. And another giant theme was a workforce transformation and how Microsoft is using its heritage and collaboration and productivity software to move beyond what Nadella called productivity paranoia, i.e., are remote workers doing their jobs? In a world where collaboration is built into intelligent workflows, and he even showed a glimpse of the future with AI-powered avatars and partnerships with Meta and Cisco with Teams of all firms. And finally, security with a bevy of tools from identity, endpoint, governance, et cetera, stressing a suite of tools from a single provider, i.e., Microsoft. So a couple points here. One, Microsoft is following in the footsteps of AWS with silicon advancements and didn't really emphasize that trend much except for the Ampere announcement. But it's building out cloud infrastructure at a massive scale, there is no debate about that. Its plan on data is to try and provide a somewhat more abstracted and simplified solutions, which differs a little bit from AWS's approach of the right database tool, for example, for the right job. Microsoft's automation play appears to provide simple individual productivity tools, kind of a ground up approach and make it really easy for users to drive these bottoms up initiatives. We heard from UiPath that forward five last month, a little bit of a different approach of horizontal automation, end-to-end across platforms. So quite a different play there. Microsoft's angle on workforce transformation is visionary and will continue to solidify in our view its dominant position with Teams and Microsoft 365, and it will drive cloud infrastructure consumption by default. On security as well as a cloud player, it has to have world-class security, and Azure does. There's not a lot of debate about that, but the knock on Microsoft is Patch Tuesday becomes Hack Wednesday because Microsoft releases so many patches, it's got so much Swiss cheese in its legacy estate and patching frequently, it becomes a roadmap and a trigger for hackers. Hey, patch Tuesday, these are all the exploits that you can go after so you can act before the patches are implemented. And so it's really become a problem for users. As well Microsoft is competing with many of the best-of-breed platforms like CrowdStrike and Okta, which have market momentum and appear to be more attractive horizontal plays for customers outside of just the Microsoft cloud. But again, it's Microsoft. They make it easy and very inexpensive to adopt. Now, despite the outstanding presentation by Satya Nadella, there are a couple of statements that should raise eyebrows. Here are two of them. First, as he said, Azure is the only cloud that supports all organizations and all workloads from enterprises to startups, to highly regulated industries. I had a conversation with Sarbjeet Johal about this, to make sure I wasn't just missing something and we were both surprised, somewhat, by this claim. I mean most certainly AWS supports more certifications for example, and we would think it has a reasonable case to dispute that claim. And the other statement, Nadella made, Azure is the only cloud provider enabling highly regulated industries to bring their most sensitive applications to the cloud. Now, reasonable people can debate whether AWS is there yet, but very clearly Oracle and IBM would have something to say about that statement. Now maybe it's not just, would say, "Oh, they're not real clouds, you know, they're just going to hosting in the cloud if you will." But still, when it comes to mission-critical applications, you would think Oracle is really the the leader there. Oh, and Satya also mentioned the claim that the Edge browser, the Microsoft Edge browser, no questions asked, he said, is the best browser for business. And we could see some people having some questions about that. Like isn't Edge based on Chrome? Anyway, so we just had to question these statements and challenge Microsoft to defend them because to us it's a little bit of BS and makes one wonder what else in such as awesome keynote and it was awesome, it was hyperbole. Okay, moving on to Google Cloud Next. The keynote started with Sundar Pichai doing a virtual session, he was remote, stressing the importance of Google Cloud. He mentioned that Google Cloud from its Q2 earnings was on a $25-billion annual run rate. What he didn't mention is that it's also on a 3.6 billion annual operating loss run rate based on its first half performance. Just saying. And we'll dig into that issue a little bit more later in this episode. He also stressed that the investments that Google has made to support its core business and search, like its global network of 22 subsea cables to support things like, YouTube video, great performance obviously that we all rely on, those innovations there. Innovations in BigQuery to support its search business and its threat analysis that it's always had and its AI, it's always been an AI-first company, he's stressed, that they're all leveraged by the Google Cloud Platform, GCP. This is all true by the way. Google has absolutely awesome tech and the talk, as well as his talk, Pichai, but also Kurian's was forward thinking and laid out a vision of the future. But it didn't address in our view, and I talked to Sarbjeet Johal about this as well, today's challenges to the degree that Microsoft did and we expect AWS will at re:Invent this year, it was more out there, more forward thinking, what's possible in the future, somewhat less about today's problem, so I think it's resonates less with today's enterprise players. Thomas Kurian then took over from Sundar Pichai and did a really good job of highlighting customers, and I think he has to, right? He has to say, "Look, we are in this game. We have customers, 9 out of the top 10 media firms use Google Cloud. 8 out of the top 10 manufacturers. 9 out of the top 10 retailers. Same for telecom, same for healthcare. 8 out of the top 10 retail banks." He and Sundar specifically referenced a number of companies, customers, including Avery Dennison, Groupe Renault, H&M, John Hopkins, Prudential, Minna Bank out of Japan, ANZ bank and many, many others during the session. So you know, they had some proof points and you got to give 'em props for that. Now like Microsoft, Google talked about infrastructure, they referenced training processors and regions and compute optionality and storage and how new workloads were emerging, particularly data-driven workloads in AI that required new infrastructure. He explicitly highlighted partnerships within Nvidia and Intel. I didn't see anything on Arm, which somewhat surprised me 'cause I believe Google's working on that or at least has come following in AWS's suit if you will, but maybe that's why they're not mentioning it or maybe I got to do more research there, but let's park that for a minute. But again, as we've extensively discussed in Breaking Analysis in our view when it comes to compute, AWS via its Annapurna acquisition is well ahead of the pack in this area. Arm is making its way into the enterprise, but all three companies are heavily investing in infrastructure, which is great news for customers and the ecosystem. We'll come back to that. Data and AI go hand in hand, and there was no shortage of data talk. Google didn't mention Snowflake or Databricks specifically, but it did mention, by the way, it mentioned Mongo a couple of times, but it did mention Google's, quote, Open Data cloud. Now maybe Google has used that term before, but Snowflake has been marketing the data cloud concept for a couple of years now. So that struck as a shot across the bow to one of its partners and obviously competitor, Snowflake. At BigQuery is a main centerpiece of Google's data strategy. Kurian talked about how they can take any data from any source in any format from any cloud provider with BigQuery Omni and aggregate and understand it. And with the support of Apache Iceberg and Delta and Hudi coming in the future and its open Data Cloud Alliance, they talked a lot about that. So without specifically mentioning Snowflake or Databricks, Kurian co-opted a lot of messaging from these two players, such as life and tech. Kurian also talked about Google Workspace and how it's now at 8 million users up from 6 million just two years ago. There's a lot of discussion on developer optionality and several details on tools supported and the open mantra of Google. And finally on security, Google brought out Kevin Mandian, he's a CUBE alum, extremely impressive individual who's CEO of Mandiant, a leading security service provider and consultancy that Google recently acquired for around 5.3 billion. They talked about moving from a shared responsibility model to a shared fate model, which is again, it's kind of a shot across AWS's bow, kind of shared responsibility model. It's unclear that Google will pay the same penalty if a customer doesn't live up to its portion of the shared responsibility, but we can probably assume that the customer is still going to bear the brunt of the pain, nonetheless. Mandiant is really interesting because it's a services play and Google has stated that it is not a services company, it's going to give partners in the channel plenty of room to play. So we'll see what it does with Mandiant. But Mandiant is a very strong enterprise capability and in the single most important area security. So interesting acquisition by Google. Now as well, unlike Microsoft, Google is not competing with security leaders like Okta and CrowdStrike. Rather, it's partnering aggressively with those firms and prominently putting them forth. All right. Let's get into the ETR survey data and see how Microsoft and Google are positioned in four key markets that we've mentioned before, IaaS, BI analytics, database data platforms and collaboration software. First, let's look at the IaaS cloud. ETR is just about to release its October survey, so I cannot share the that data yet. I can only show July data, but we're going to give you some directional hints throughout this conversation. This chart shows net score or spending momentum on the vertical axis and overlap or presence in the data, i.e., how pervasive the platform is. That's on the horizontal axis. And we've inserted the Wikibon estimates of IaaS revenue for the companies, the Big 3. Actually the Big 4, we included Alibaba. So a couple of points in this somewhat busy data chart. First, Microsoft and AWS as always are dominant on both axes. The red dotted line there at 40% on the vertical axis. That represents a highly elevated spending velocity and all of the Big 3 are above the line. Now at the same time, GCP is well behind the two leaders on the horizontal axis and you can see that in the table insert as well in our revenue estimates. Now why is Azure bigger in the ETR survey when AWS is larger according to the Wikibon revenue estimates? And the answer is because Microsoft with products like 365 and Teams will often be considered by respondents in the survey as cloud by customers, so they fit into that ETR category. But in the insert data we're stripping out applications and SaaS from Microsoft and Google and we're only isolating on IaaS. The other point is when you take a look at the early October returns, you see downward pressure as signified by those dotted arrows on every name. The only exception was Dell, or Dell and IBM, which showing slightly improved momentum. So the survey data generally confirms what we know that AWS and Azure have a massive lead and strong momentum in the marketplace. But the real story is below the line. Unlike Google Cloud, which is on pace to lose well over 3 billion on an operating basis this year, AWS's operating profit is around $20 billion annually. Microsoft's Intelligent Cloud generated more than $30 billion in operating income last fiscal year. Let that sink in for a moment. Now again, that's not to say Google doesn't have traction, it does and Kurian gave some nice proof points and customer examples in his keynote presentation, but the data underscores the lead that Microsoft and AWS have on Google in cloud. And here's a breakdown of ETR's proprietary net score methodology, that vertical axis that we showed you in the previous chart. It asks customers, are you adopting the platform new? That's that lime green. Are you spending 6% or more? That's the forest green. Is you're spending flat? That's the gray. Is you're spending down 6% or worse? That's the pinkest color. Or are you replacing the platform, defecting? That's the bright red. You subtract the reds from the greens and you get a net score. Now one caveat here, which actually is really favorable from Microsoft, the Microsoft data that we're showing here is across the entire Microsoft portfolio. The other point is, this is July data, we'll have an update for you once ETR releases its October results. But we're talking about meaningful samples here, the ends. 620 for AWS over a thousand from Microsoft in more than 450 respondents in the survey for Google. So the real tell is replacements, that bright red. There is virtually no churn for AWS and Microsoft, but Google's churn is 5x, those two in the survey. Now 5% churn is not high, but you'd like to see three things for Google given it's smaller size. One is less churn, two is much, much higher adoption rates in the lime green. Three is a higher percentage of those spending more, the forest green. And four is a lower percentage of those spending less. And none of these conditions really applies here for Google. GCP is still not growing fast enough in our opinion, and doesn't have nearly the traction of the two leaders and that shows up in the survey data. All right, let's look at the next sector, BI analytics. Here we have that same XY dimension. Again, Microsoft dominating the picture. AWS very strong also in both axes. Tableau, very popular and respectable of course acquired by Salesforce on the vertical axis, still looking pretty good there. And again on the horizontal axis, big presence there for Tableau. And Google with Looker and its other platforms is also respectable, but it again, has some work to do. Now notice Streamlit, that's a recent Snowflake acquisition. It's strong in the vertical axis and because of Snowflake's go-to-market (indistinct), it's likely going to move to the right overtime. Grafana is also prominent in the Y axis, but a glimpse at the most recent survey data shows them slightly declining while Looker actually improves a bit. As does Cloudera, which we'll move up slightly. Again, Microsoft just blows you away, doesn't it? All right, now let's get into database and data platform. Same X Y dimensions, but now database and data warehouse. Snowflake as usual takes the top spot on the vertical axis and it is actually keeps moving to the right as well with again, Microsoft and AWS is dominant in the market, as is Oracle on the X axis, albeit it's got less spending velocity, but of course it's the database king. Google is well behind on the X axis but solidly above the 40% line on the vertical axis. Note that virtually all platforms will see pressure in the next survey due to the macro environment. Microsoft might even dip below the 40% line for the first time in a while. Lastly, let's look at the collaboration and productivity software market. This is such an important area for both Microsoft and Google. And just look at Microsoft with 365 and Teams up into the right. I mean just so impressive in ubiquitous. And we've highlighted Google. It's in the pack. It certainly is a nice base with 174 N, which I can tell you that N will rise in the next survey, which is an indication that more people are adopting. But given the investment and the tech behind it and all the AI and Google's resources, you'd really like to see Google in this space above the 40% line, given the importance of this market, of this collaboration area to Google's success and the degree to which they emphasize it in their pitch. And look, this brings up something that we've talked about before on Breaking Analysis. Google doesn't have a tech problem. This is a go-to-market and marketing challenge that Google faces and it's up against two go-to-market champs and Microsoft and AWS. And Google doesn't have the enterprise sales culture. It's trying, it's making progress, but it's like that racehorse that has all the potential in the world, but it's just missing some kind of key ingredient to put it over at the top. It's always coming in third, (chuckles) but we're watching and Google's obviously, making some investments as we shared with earlier. All right. Some final thoughts on what we learned this week and in this research: customers and partners should be thrilled that both Microsoft and Google along with AWS are spending so much money on innovation and building out global platforms. This is a gift to the industry and we should be thankful frankly because it's good for business, it's good for competitiveness and future innovation as a platform that can be built upon. Now we didn't talk much about multi-cloud, we haven't even mentioned supercloud, but both Microsoft and Google have a story that resonates with customers in cross cloud capabilities, unlike AWS at this time. But we never say never when it comes to AWS. They sometimes and oftentimes surprise you. One of the other things that Sarbjeet Johal and John Furrier and I have discussed is that each of the Big 3 is positioning to their respective strengths. AWS is the best IaaS. Microsoft is building out the kind of, quote, we-make-it-easy-for-you cloud, and Google is trying to be the open data cloud with its open-source chops and excellent tech. And that puts added pressure on Snowflake, doesn't it? You know, Thomas Kurian made some comments according to CRN, something to the effect that, we are the only company that can do the data cloud thing across clouds, which again, if I'm being honest is not really accurate. Now I haven't clarified these statements with Google and often things get misquoted, but there's little question that, as AWS has done in the past with Redshift, Google is taking a page out of Snowflake, Databricks as well. A big difference in the Big 3 is that AWS doesn't have this big emphasis on the up-the-stack collaboration software that both Microsoft and Google have, and that for Microsoft and Google will drive captive IaaS consumption. AWS obviously does some of that in database, a lot of that in database, but ISVs that compete with Microsoft and Google should have a greater affinity, one would think, to AWS for competitive reasons. and the same thing could be said in security, we would think because, as I mentioned before, Microsoft competes very directly with CrowdStrike and Okta and others. One of the big thing that Sarbjeet mentioned that I want to call out here, I'd love to have your opinion. AWS specifically, but also Microsoft with Azure have successfully created what Sarbjeet calls brand distance. AWS from the Amazon Retail, and even though AWS all the time talks about Amazon X and Amazon Y is in their product portfolio, but you don't really consider it part of the retail organization 'cause it's not. Azure, same thing, has created its own identity. And it seems that Google still struggles to do that. It's still very highly linked to the sort of core of Google. Now, maybe that's by design, but for enterprise customers, there's still some potential confusion with Google, what's its intentions? How long will they continue to lose money and invest? Are they going to pull the plug like they do on so many other tools? So you know, maybe some rethinking of the marketing there and the positioning. Now we didn't talk much about ecosystem, but it's vital for any cloud player, and Google again has some work to do relative to the leaders. Which brings us to supercloud. The ecosystem and end customers are now in a position this decade to digitally transform. And we're talking here about building out their own clouds, not by putting in and building data centers and installing racks of servers and storage devices, no. Rather to build value on top of the hyperscaler gift that has been presented. And that is a mega trend that we're watching closely in theCUBE community. While there's debate about the supercloud name and so forth, there little question in our minds that the next decade of cloud will not be like the last. All right, we're going to leave it there today. Many thanks to Sarbjeet Johal, and my business partner, John Furrier, for their input to today's episode. Thanks to Alex Myerson who's on production and manages the podcast and Ken Schiffman as well. Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight helped get the word out on social media and in our newsletters. And Rob Hof is our editor in chief over at SiliconANGLE, who does some wonderful editing. And check out SiliconANGLE, a lot of coverage on Google Cloud Next and Microsoft Ignite. Remember, all these episodes are available as podcast wherever you listen. Just search Breaking Analysis podcast. I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. And you can always get in touch with me via email, david.vellante@siliconangle.com or you can DM me at dvellante or comment on my LinkedIn posts. And please do check out etr.ai, the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Vellante for the CUBE Insights, powered by ETR. Thanks for watching and we'll see you next time on Breaking Analysis. (gentle music)

>> From the Cube Studios in Palo Alto in Boston bringing you data driven insights from theCUBE and ETR, this is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> Is the glass half full or half empty? Well, it depends on how you want to look at it. CIOs are tapping the breaks on spending, that's clear. The latest macro survey data from ETR quantifies what we already know to be true, that IT spend is decelerating. CIOs and IT buyers forecast that their tech spend will grow by 5.5% this year. That's a meaningful deceleration from near year end 2021 expectations. But these levels are still well above historical norms. So while the feel good factor may be in some jeopardy, overall things are pretty good, at least for now. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon Cube Insights powered by ETR. In this Breaking Analysis, we update you in the latest macro tech spending data from Enterprise Technology Research, including strategies that organizations are employing to cut costs, and which project categories continue to see the most traction. Now, CIOs were much more optimistic at the end of last year than they are today. Back then they thought their aggregates spend would increase by more than 8%. Of course, at that time the expectation was that the economy was ready to make a semi ordered return to normal, and that didn't happen as you well know. And you can see here the expectation for spending this year is down to 5.5% growth, as we said, and this is based on the most recent ETR CIO and IT buyer survey, which includes more than 1100 responses. So we started the year above 8% then made a meaningful decline into the mid sixes and nine months into the year, we're now in the mid fives, but this is still two to 300 basis points above historical norms for IT spending. And looking ahead to next year, CIOs are expecting accelerated growth edging back up toward that 6% level. Now as noted here, the visibility on this is probably less clear than pre COVID years of course, but the bottom line is digital transformations are continuing to push it spending above historical levels. Now the problem as we know, is earning estimates are coming down and forecasts are being lowered every day. I mean, as the saying goes the first disappointment is rarely the last. Even the semiconductor industry is seeing softness. Just this past week we saw AMD lower its quarterly revenue forecast by more than a billion dollars, as PC demand in the second half has significantly softened. But again, that's relative to some pretty amazing PC growth in the past couple of years thanks to the isolation economy. So we do see CIOs tapping the brakes, and these data points here tell an interesting story. ETR asked respondents about various actions that they're taking and these two stood out. The top line is, "We're accelerating new IT projects," and the bottom line is, "We're freezing IT projects," and you can see the convergence of those two lines, which of course signals the down. But again, these are not alarming data points. If you think about history. If you go back to Q1 2020, for example, just before the pandemic, that top line that was at 12% versus where it is today at 25%. And if you look at project freezes, they were at 22% in Q1 of 2020, which is significantly higher than today. So relatively speaking the spending dynamic is still strong. It just doesn't feel that way because we're coming out of an historic anomaly. Now, ETR asked a follow up question to respondents that indicated that spending would be down this quarter relative to the same quarter last year. So they wanted to better understand the most common actions that organizations would take to save money, and that's what this chart shows. The most common approach is still to consolidate redundant vendors across the lines of business. That was over 30%, as you can see here in the first set of bars. So presumably CIOs now have the latitude to go after so-called shadow projects, shadow IT, and implement standards across the organization via vendor consolidation. As well, there's a big jump in the survey from 14% to 20% of respondents saying that they were going after the Cloud bill, and that relates to the fourth set of bars which is scrutinizing consumption based services. So combined, 45% of respondents are looking at reducing their on demand spend. Now, some of that may be SaaS related, but most of the SaaS spend is committed, so pre-committed, but we do see organizations doing more audits and trying to eliminate or reduce orphaned licenses. Now the last data point that we want to focus on is the technology sectors that are of the highest priority. You can see here on the set of bars on the left while cybersecurity remains the top technology area, even this sector is showing a little bit of softness. What's really notable is the uptick in data related areas, that second set of bars, this category is now the second most cited, taking over from Cloud, which as you can see, remain strong, and of course Cloud continues to be a key component of digital transformations. As we've previously reported, machine learning, AI, and RPA are somewhat more strategic and more discretionary, and they've dropped below the 40% mark in terms of net score in the overall survey. We're not showing that data here, but we covered this in our last Breaking Analysis ahead of our UI path event. Now you have to remember these are the top seven sectors, and there are dozens in the ETR taxonomy, so making this list is goodness from a spending perspective. So even though there's some softness in most of these categories, these are the ones CIOs are most focused on addressing. So the big takeaways of this data are spending targets are coming down to the mid 5% range, but this is meaningfully higher than historical norms. And while CIOs, they are pumping the brakes on projects, they're still moving forward at rates faster than pre COVID levels and they're freezing fewer projects. Remember, this as well, this could be a skill shortage in play, but the slowdown is more likely related to the economic uncertainty. You know, we're seeing the two-sided coin of pay by the drink consumption models, right? You can dial it up as as you need to but you can also dial it down, and that's one of the alluring features of on demand. And we're seeing firms give more scrutiny to the Cloud bill, why wouldn't they? And there's a bit of unsurprising backlash to the flaws in today's SaaS pricing model that locks you in for specified terms. So people, when their term comes up are really going to scrutinize whether or not they have orphan licenses and try to reduce those. And it appears that the real savings can come from eliminating redundant vendors. That seems to be the biggest, you know, number one strategy, and that could favor some of the larger firms, think Oracle, Dell, Salesforce ServiceNow, IBM, HPE, Cisco, and others, you know, they may benefit from having more of larger footprint across the organization. You know, having that one throat to choke, you know one back to pat, as some like to say, but they could benefit those larger companies in least in the near term. Now having said that, we do see an uptick in data related areas as a priority for CIOs, and that could mean companies like Snowflake are in a strong position and can continue to thrive. You know, even though as we reported a couple of weeks ago, virtually all companies and sectors in the ETR data set are showing some softness related to spending a momentum from previous quarters. ETR will have its... will release its results next week and then we'll dig into the specific vendor action relative to previous quarters. So look, it feels like a meaningful slowdown but the sky is by no means falling. There are these kind of out of our control factors like interest rates, and Ukraine, and oil supply, and wages, et cetera, that are creating this uncertainty and causing firms to be more cautious. But generally we remain optimistic as leading tech companies are pretty well managed and have a lot of runway on the balance sheets, and can adjust costs to reflect the uncertain environment and remain flexible in their business models in doing so. Okay, that's it for today. Thanks to Alex Myerson who's on production and he also manages the podcast for Breaking Analysis. Ken Schiffman is also out of our Boston studio as well. Kristin Martin and Cheryl Knight, they help get the word out on social media and in our newsletters, and Rob Hof is our editor in chief over at Silicon Angle who posts our Breaking Analysis and does some great editing. So thank you to all. Remember all these episodes are available as podcasts. Wherever you listen all you got to do is search Breaking Analysis podcast. I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com, and you can email me at david.vellante@siliconangle.com or DM me @dvellante, or feel free to comment on our LinkedIn posts. And please do check out etr.ai for the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave for the theCUBE Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching and we'll see you next time on Breaking Analysis. (relaxing music)

>> From The Cube Studios in Palo Alto and Boston, bringing you data driven insights from The Cube at ETR. This is "Breaking Analysis" with Dave Vellante. >> The reverse momentum in tech stocks caused by rising interest rates, less attractive discounted cash flow models, and more tepid forward guidance, can be easily measured by public market valuations. And while there's lots of discussion about the impact on private companies and cash runway and 409A valuations, measuring the performance of non-public companies isn't as easy. IPOs have dried up and public statements by private companies, of course, they accentuate the good and they kind of hide the bad. Real data, unless you're an insider, is hard to find. Hello and welcome to this week's "Wikibon Cube Insights" powered by ETR. In this "Breaking Analysis", we unlock some of the secrets that non-public, emerging tech companies may or may not be sharing. And we do this by introducing you to a capability from ETR that we've not exposed you to over the past couple of years, it's called the Emerging Technologies Survey, and it is packed with sentiment data and performance data based on surveys of more than a thousand CIOs and IT buyers covering more than 400 companies. And we've invited back our colleague, Erik Bradley of ETR to help explain the survey and the data that we're going to cover today. Erik, this survey is something that I've not personally spent much time on, but I'm blown away at the data. It's really unique and detailed. First of all, welcome. Good to see you again. >> Great to see you too, Dave, and I'm really happy to be talking about the ETS or the Emerging Technology Survey. Even our own clients of constituents probably don't spend as much time in here as they should. >> Yeah, because there's so much in the mainstream, but let's pull up a slide to bring out the survey composition. Tell us about the study. How often do you run it? What's the background and the methodology? >> Yeah, you were just spot on the way you were talking about the private tech companies out there. So what we did is we decided to take all the vendors that we track that are not yet public and move 'em over to the ETS. And there isn't a lot of information out there. If you're not in Silicon (indistinct), you're not going to get this stuff. So PitchBook and Tech Crunch are two out there that gives some data on these guys. But what we really wanted to do was go out to our community. We have 6,000, ITDMs in our community. We wanted to ask them, "Are you aware of these companies? And if so, are you allocating any resources to them? Are you planning to evaluate them," and really just kind of figure out what we can do. So this particular survey, as you can see, 1000 plus responses, over 450 vendors that we track. And essentially what we're trying to do here is talk about your evaluation and awareness of these companies and also your utilization. And also if you're not utilizing 'em, then we can also figure out your sales conversion or churn. So this is interesting, not only for the ITDMs themselves to figure out what their peers are evaluating and what they should put in POCs against the big guys when contracts come up. But it's also really interesting for the tech vendors themselves to see how they're performing. >> And you can see 2/3 of the respondents are director level of above. You got 28% is C-suite. There is of course a North America bias, 70, 75% is North America. But these smaller companies, you know, that's when they start doing business. So, okay. We're going to do a couple of things here today. First, we're going to give you the big picture across the sectors that ETR covers within the ETS survey. And then we're going to look at the high and low sentiment for the larger private companies. And then we're going to do the same for the smaller private companies, the ones that don't have as much mindshare. And then I'm going to put those two groups together and we're going to look at two dimensions, actually three dimensions, which companies are being evaluated the most. Second, companies are getting the most usage and adoption of their offerings. And then third, which companies are seeing the highest churn rates, which of course is a silent killer of companies. And then finally, we're going to look at the sentiment and mindshare for two key areas that we like to cover often here on "Breaking Analysis", security and data. And data comprises database, including data warehousing, and then big data analytics is the second part of data. And then machine learning and AI is the third section within data that we're going to look at. Now, one other thing before we get into it, ETR very often will include open source offerings in the mix, even though they're not companies like TensorFlow or Kubernetes, for example. And we'll call that out during this discussion. The reason this is done is for context, because everyone is using open source. It is the heart of innovation and many business models are super glued to an open source offering, like take MariaDB, for example. There's the foundation and then there's with the open source code and then there, of course, the company that sells services around the offering. Okay, so let's first look at the highest and lowest sentiment among these private firms, the ones that have the highest mindshare. So they're naturally going to be somewhat larger. And we do this on two dimensions, sentiment on the vertical axis and mindshare on the horizontal axis and note the open source tool, see Kubernetes, Postgres, Kafka, TensorFlow, Jenkins, Grafana, et cetera. So Erik, please explain what we're looking at here, how it's derived and what the data tells us. >> Certainly, so there is a lot here, so we're going to break it down first of all by explaining just what mindshare and net sentiment is. You explain the axis. We have so many evaluation metrics, but we need to aggregate them into one so that way we can rank against each other. Net sentiment is really the aggregation of all the positive and subtracting out the negative. So the net sentiment is a very quick way of looking at where these companies stand versus their peers in their sectors and sub sectors. Mindshare is basically the awareness of them, which is good for very early stage companies. And you'll see some names on here that are obviously been around for a very long time. And they're clearly be the bigger on the axis on the outside. Kubernetes, for instance, as you mentioned, is open source. This de facto standard for all container orchestration, and it should be that far up into the right, because that's what everyone's using. In fact, the open source leaders are so prevalent in the emerging technology survey that we break them out later in our analysis, 'cause it's really not fair to include them and compare them to the actual companies that are providing the support and the security around that open source technology. But no survey, no analysis, no research would be complete without including these open source tech. So what we're looking at here, if I can just get away from the open source names, we see other things like Databricks and OneTrust . They're repeating as top net sentiment performers here. And then also the design vendors. People don't spend a lot of time on 'em, but Miro and Figma. This is their third survey in a row where they're just dominating that sentiment overall. And Adobe should probably take note of that because they're really coming after them. But Databricks, we all know probably would've been a public company by now if the market hadn't turned, but you can see just how dominant they are in a survey of nothing but private companies. And we'll see that again when we talk about the database later. >> And I'll just add, so you see automation anywhere on there, the big UiPath competitor company that was not able to get to the public markets. They've been trying. Snyk, Peter McKay's company, they've raised a bunch of money, big security player. They're doing some really interesting things in developer security, helping developers secure the data flow, H2O.ai, Dataiku AI company. We saw them at the Snowflake Summit. Redis Labs, Netskope and security. So a lot of names that we know that ultimately we think are probably going to be hitting the public market. Okay, here's the same view for private companies with less mindshare, Erik. Take us through this one. >> On the previous slide too real quickly, I wanted to pull that security scorecard and we'll get back into it. But this is a newcomer, that I couldn't believe how strong their data was, but we'll bring that up in a second. Now, when we go to the ones of lower mindshare, it's interesting to talk about open source, right? Kubernetes was all the way on the top right. Everyone uses containers. Here we see Istio up there. Not everyone is using service mesh as much. And that's why Istio is in the smaller breakout. But still when you talk about net sentiment, it's about the leader, it's the highest one there is. So really interesting to point out. Then we see other names like Collibra in the data side really performing well. And again, as always security, very well represented here. We have Aqua, Wiz, Armis, which is a standout in this survey this time around. They do IoT security. I hadn't even heard of them until I started digging into the data here. And I couldn't believe how well they were doing. And then of course you have AnyScale, which is doing a second best in this and the best name in the survey Hugging Face, which is a machine learning AI tool. Also doing really well on a net sentiment, but they're not as far along on that access of mindshare just yet. So these are again, emerging companies that might not be as well represented in the enterprise as they will be in a couple of years. >> Hugging Face sounds like something you do with your two year old. Like you said, you see high performers, AnyScale do machine learning and you mentioned them. They came out of Berkeley. Collibra Governance, InfluxData is on there. InfluxDB's a time series database. And yeah, of course, Alex, if you bring that back up, you get a big group of red dots, right? That's the bad zone, I guess, which Sisense does vis, Yellowbrick Data is a NPP database. How should we interpret the red dots, Erik? I mean, is it necessarily a bad thing? Could it be misinterpreted? What's your take on that? >> Sure, well, let me just explain the definition of it first from a data science perspective, right? We're a data company first. So the gray dots that you're seeing that aren't named, that's the mean that's the average. So in order for you to be on this chart, you have to be at least one standard deviation above or below that average. So that gray is where we're saying, "Hey, this is where the lump of average comes in. This is where everyone normally stands." So you either have to be an outperformer or an underperformer to even show up in this analysis. So by definition, yes, the red dots are bad. You're at least one standard deviation below the average of your peers. It's not where you want to be. And if you're on the lower left, not only are you not performing well from a utilization or an actual usage rate, but people don't even know who you are. So that's a problem, obviously. And the VCs and the PEs out there that are backing these companies, they're the ones who mostly are interested in this data. >> Yeah. Oh, that's great explanation. Thank you for that. No, nice benchmarking there and yeah, you don't want to be in the red. All right, let's get into the next segment here. Here going to look at evaluation rates, adoption and the all important churn. First new evaluations. Let's bring up that slide. And Erik, take us through this. >> So essentially I just want to explain what evaluation means is that people will cite that they either plan to evaluate the company or they're currently evaluating. So that means we're aware of 'em and we are choosing to do a POC of them. And then we'll see later how that turns into utilization, which is what a company wants to see, awareness, evaluation, and then actually utilizing them. That's sort of the life cycle for these emerging companies. So what we're seeing here, again, with very high evaluation rates. H2O, we mentioned. SecurityScorecard jumped up again. Chargebee, Snyk, Salt Security, Armis. A lot of security names are up here, Aqua, Netskope, which God has been around forever. I still can't believe it's in an Emerging Technology Survey But so many of these names fall in data and security again, which is why we decided to pick those out Dave. And on the lower side, Vena, Acton, those unfortunately took the dubious award of the lowest evaluations in our survey, but I prefer to focus on the positive. So SecurityScorecard, again, real standout in this one, they're in a security assessment space, basically. They'll come in and assess for you how your security hygiene is. And it's an area of a real interest right now amongst our ITDM community. >> Yeah, I mean, I think those, and then Arctic Wolf is up there too. They're doing managed services. You had mentioned Netskope. Yeah, okay. All right, let's look at now adoption. These are the companies whose offerings are being used the most and are above that standard deviation in the green. Take us through this, Erik. >> Sure, yet again, what we're looking at is, okay, we went from awareness, we went to evaluation. Now it's about utilization, which means a survey respondent's going to state "Yes, we evaluated and we plan to utilize it" or "It's already in our enterprise and we're actually allocating further resources to it." Not surprising, again, a lot of open source, the reason why, it's free. So it's really easy to grow your utilization on something that's free. But as you and I both know, as Red Hat proved, there's a lot of money to be made once the open source is adopted, right? You need the governance, you need the security, you need the support wrapped around it. So here we're seeing Kubernetes, Postgres, Apache Kafka, Jenkins, Grafana. These are all open source based names. But if we're looking at names that are non open source, we're going to see Databricks, Automation Anywhere, Rubrik all have the highest mindshare. So these are the names, not surprisingly, all names that probably should have been public by now. Everyone's expecting an IPO imminently. These are the names that have the highest mindshare. If we talk about the highest utilization rates, again, Miro and Figma pop up, and I know they're not household names, but they are just dominant in this survey. These are applications that are meant for design software and, again, they're going after an Autodesk or a CAD or Adobe type of thing. It is just dominant how high the utilization rates are here, which again is something Adobe should be paying attention to. And then you'll see a little bit lower, but also interesting, we see Collibra again, we see Hugging Face again. And these are names that are obviously in the data governance, ML, AI side. So we're seeing a ton of data, a ton of security and Rubrik was interesting in this one, too, high utilization and high mindshare. We know how pervasive they are in the enterprise already. >> Erik, Alex, keep that up for a second, if you would. So yeah, you mentioned Rubrik. Cohesity's not on there. They're sort of the big one. We're going to talk about them in a moment. Puppet is interesting to me because you remember the early days of that sort of space, you had Puppet and Chef and then you had Ansible. Red Hat bought Ansible and then Ansible really took off. So it's interesting to see Puppet on there as well. Okay. So now let's look at the churn because this one is where you don't want to be. It's, of course, all red 'cause churn is bad. Take us through this, Erik. >> Yeah, definitely don't want to be here and I don't love to dwell on the negative. So we won't spend as much time. But to your point, there's one thing I want to point out that think it's important. So you see Rubrik in the same spot, but Rubrik has so many citations in our survey that it actually would make sense that they're both being high utilization and churn just because they're so well represented. They have such a high overall representation in our survey. And the reason I call that out is Cohesity. Cohesity has an extremely high churn rate here about 17% and unlike Rubrik, they were not on the utilization side. So Rubrik is seeing both, Cohesity is not. It's not being utilized, but it's seeing a high churn. So that's the way you can look at this data and say, "Hm." Same thing with Puppet. You noticed that it was on the other slide. It's also on this one. So basically what it means is a lot of people are giving Puppet a shot, but it's starting to churn, which means it's not as sticky as we would like. One that was surprising on here for me was Tanium. It's kind of jumbled in there. It's hard to see in the middle, but Tanium, I was very surprised to see as high of a churn because what I do hear from our end user community is that people that use it, like it. It really kind of spreads into not only vulnerability management, but also that endpoint detection and response side. So I was surprised by that one, mostly to see Tanium in here. Mural, again, was another one of those application design softwares that's seeing a very high churn as well. >> So you're saying if you're in both... Alex, bring that back up if you would. So if you're in both like MariaDB is for example, I think, yeah, they're in both. They're both green in the previous one and red here, that's not as bad. You mentioned Rubrik is going to be in both. Cohesity is a bit of a concern. Cohesity just brought on Sanjay Poonen. So this could be a go to market issue, right? I mean, 'cause Cohesity has got a great product and they got really happy customers. So they're just maybe having to figure out, okay, what's the right ideal customer profile and Sanjay Poonen, I guarantee, is going to have that company cranking. I mean they had been doing very well on the surveys and had fallen off of a bit. The other interesting things wondering the previous survey I saw Cvent, which is an event platform. My only reason I pay attention to that is 'cause we actually have an event platform. We don't sell it separately. We bundle it as part of our offerings. And you see Hopin on here. Hopin raised a billion dollars during the pandemic. And we were like, "Wow, that's going to blow up." And so you see Hopin on the churn and you didn't see 'em in the previous chart, but that's sort of interesting. Like you said, let's not kind of dwell on the negative, but you really don't. You know, churn is a real big concern. Okay, now we're going to drill down into two sectors, security and data. Where data comprises three areas, database and data warehousing, machine learning and AI and big data analytics. So first let's take a look at the security sector. Now this is interesting because not only is it a sector drill down, but also gives an indicator of how much money the firm has raised, which is the size of that bubble. And to tell us if a company is punching above its weight and efficiently using its venture capital. Erik, take us through this slide. Explain the dots, the size of the dots. Set this up please. >> Yeah. So again, the axis is still the same, net sentiment and mindshare, but what we've done this time is we've taken publicly available information on how much capital company is raised and that'll be the size of the circle you see around the name. And then whether it's green or red is basically saying relative to the amount of money they've raised, how are they doing in our data? So when you see a Netskope, which has been around forever, raised a lot of money, that's why you're going to see them more leading towards red, 'cause it's just been around forever and kind of would expect it. Versus a name like SecurityScorecard, which is only raised a little bit of money and it's actually performing just as well, if not better than a name, like a Netskope. OneTrust doing absolutely incredible right now. BeyondTrust. We've seen the issues with Okta, right. So those are two names that play in that space that obviously are probably getting some looks about what's going on right now. Wiz, we've all heard about right? So raised a ton of money. It's doing well on net sentiment, but the mindshare isn't as well as you'd want, which is why you're going to see a little bit of that red versus a name like Aqua, which is doing container and application security. And hasn't raised as much money, but is really neck and neck with a name like Wiz. So that is why on a relative basis, you'll see that more green. As we all know, information security is never going away. But as we'll get to later in the program, Dave, I'm not sure in this current market environment, if people are as willing to do POCs and switch away from their security provider, right. There's a little bit of tepidness out there, a little trepidation. So right now we're seeing overall a slight pause, a slight cooling in overall evaluations on the security side versus historical levels a year ago. >> Now let's stay on here for a second. So a couple things I want to point out. So it's interesting. Now Snyk has raised over, I think $800 million but you can see them, they're high on the vertical and the horizontal, but now compare that to Lacework. It's hard to see, but they're kind of buried in the middle there. That's the biggest dot in this whole thing. I think I'm interpreting this correctly. They've raised over a billion dollars. It's a Mike Speiser company. He was the founding investor in Snowflake. So people watch that very closely, but that's an example of where they're not punching above their weight. They recently had a layoff and they got to fine tune things, but I'm still confident they they're going to do well. 'Cause they're approaching security as a data problem, which is probably people having trouble getting their arms around that. And then again, I see Arctic Wolf. They're not red, they're not green, but they've raised fair amount of money, but it's showing up to the right and decent level there. And a couple of the other ones that you mentioned, Netskope. Yeah, they've raised a lot of money, but they're actually performing where you want. What you don't want is where Lacework is, right. They've got some work to do to really take advantage of the money that they raised last November and prior to that. >> Yeah, if you're seeing that more neutral color, like you're calling out with an Arctic Wolf, like that means relative to their peers, this is where they should be. It's when you're seeing that red on a Lacework where we all know, wow, you raised a ton of money and your mindshare isn't where it should be. Your net sentiment is not where it should be comparatively. And then you see these great standouts, like Salt Security and SecurityScorecard and Abnormal. You know they haven't raised that much money yet, but their net sentiment's higher and their mindshare's doing well. So those basically in a nutshell, if you're a PE or a VC and you see a small green circle, then you're doing well, then it means you made a good investment. >> Some of these guys, I don't know, but you see these small green circles. Those are the ones you want to start digging into and maybe help them catch a wave. Okay, let's get into the data discussion. And again, three areas, database slash data warehousing, big data analytics and ML AI. First, we're going to look at the database sector. So Alex, thank you for bringing that up. Alright, take us through this, Erik. Actually, let me just say Postgres SQL. I got to ask you about this. It shows some funding, but that actually could be a mix of EDB, the company that commercializes Postgres and Postgres the open source database, which is a transaction system and kind of an open source Oracle. You see MariaDB is a database, but open source database. But the companies they've raised over $200 million and they filed an S-4. So Erik looks like this might be a little bit of mashup of companies and open source products. Help us understand this. >> Yeah, it's tough when you start dealing with the open source side and I'll be honest with you, there is a little bit of a mashup here. There are certain names here that are a hundred percent for profit companies. And then there are others that are obviously open source based like Redis is open source, but Redis Labs is the one trying to monetize the support around it. So you're a hundred percent accurate on this slide. I think one of the things here that's important to note though, is just how important open source is to data. If you're going to be going to any of these areas, it's going to be open source based to begin with. And Neo4j is one I want to call out here. It's not one everyone's familiar with, but it's basically geographical charting database, which is a name that we're seeing on a net sentiment side actually really, really high. When you think about it's the third overall net sentiment for a niche database play. It's not as big on the mindshare 'cause it's use cases aren't as often, but third biggest play on net sentiment. I found really interesting on this slide. >> And again, so MariaDB, as I said, they filed an S-4 I think $50 million in revenue, that might even be ARR. So they're not huge, but they're getting there. And by the way, MariaDB, if you don't know, was the company that was formed the day that Oracle bought Sun in which they got MySQL and MariaDB has done a really good job of replacing a lot of MySQL instances. Oracle has responded with MySQL HeatWave, which was kind of the Oracle version of MySQL. So there's some interesting battles going on there. If you think about the LAMP stack, the M in the LAMP stack was MySQL. And so now it's all MariaDB replacing that MySQL for a large part. And then you see again, the red, you know, you got to have some concerns about there. Aerospike's been around for a long time. SingleStore changed their name a couple years ago, last year. Yellowbrick Data, Fire Bolt was kind of going after Snowflake for a while, but yeah, you want to get out of that red zone. So they got some work to do. >> And Dave, real quick for the people that aren't aware, I just want to let them know that we can cut this data with the public company data as well. So we can cross over this with that because some of these names are competing with the larger public company names as well. So we can go ahead and cross reference like a MariaDB with a Mongo, for instance, or of something of that nature. So it's not in this slide, but at another point we can certainly explain on a relative basis how these private names are doing compared to the other ones as well. >> All right, let's take a quick look at analytics. Alex, bring that up if you would. Go ahead, Erik. >> Yeah, I mean, essentially here, I can't see it on my screen, my apologies. I just kind of went to blank on that. So gimme one second to catch up. >> So I could set it up while you're doing that. You got Grafana up and to the right. I mean, this is huge right. >> Got it thank you. I lost my screen there for a second. Yep. Again, open source name Grafana, absolutely up and to the right. But as we know, Grafana Labs is actually picking up a lot of speed based on Grafana, of course. And I think we might actually hear some noise from them coming this year. The names that are actually a little bit more disappointing than I want to call out are names like ThoughtSpot. It's been around forever. Their mindshare of course is second best here but based on the amount of time they've been around and the amount of money they've raised, it's not actually outperforming the way it should be. We're seeing Moogsoft obviously make some waves. That's very high net sentiment for that company. It's, you know, what, third, fourth position overall in this entire area, Another name like Fivetran, Matillion is doing well. Fivetran, even though it's got a high net sentiment, again, it's raised so much money that we would've expected a little bit more at this point. I know you know this space extremely well, but basically what we're looking at here and to the bottom left, you're going to see some names with a lot of red, large circles that really just aren't performing that well. InfluxData, however, second highest net sentiment. And it's really pretty early on in this stage and the feedback we're getting on this name is the use cases are great, the efficacy's great. And I think it's one to watch out for. >> InfluxData, time series database. The other interesting things I just noticed here, you got Tamer on here, which is that little small green. Those are the ones we were saying before, look for those guys. They might be some of the interesting companies out there and then observe Jeremy Burton's company. They do observability on top of Snowflake, not green, but kind of in that gray. So that's kind of cool. Monte Carlo is another one, they're sort of slightly green. They are doing some really interesting things in data and data mesh. So yeah, okay. So I can spend all day on this stuff, Erik, phenomenal data. I got to get back and really dig in. Let's end with machine learning and AI. Now this chart it's similar in its dimensions, of course, except for the money raised. We're not showing that size of the bubble, but AI is so hot. We wanted to cover that here, Erik, explain this please. Why TensorFlow is highlighted and walk us through this chart. >> Yeah, it's funny yet again, right? Another open source name, TensorFlow being up there. And I just want to explain, we do break out machine learning, AI is its own sector. A lot of this of course really is intertwined with the data side, but it is on its own area. And one of the things I think that's most important here to break out is Databricks. We started to cover Databricks in machine learning, AI. That company has grown into much, much more than that. So I do want to state to you Dave, and also the audience out there that moving forward, we're going to be moving Databricks out of only the MA/AI into other sectors. So we can kind of value them against their peers a little bit better. But in this instance, you could just see how dominant they are in this area. And one thing that's not here, but I do want to point out is that we have the ability to break this down by industry vertical, organization size. And when I break this down into Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000, both Databricks and Tensorflow are even better than you see here. So it's quite interesting to see that the names that are succeeding are also succeeding with the largest organizations in the world. And as we know, large organizations means large budgets. So this is one area that I just thought was really interesting to point out that as we break it down, the data by vertical, these two names still are the outstanding players. >> I just also want to call it H2O.ai. They're getting a lot of buzz in the marketplace and I'm seeing them a lot more. Anaconda, another one. Dataiku consistently popping up. DataRobot is also interesting because all the kerfuffle that's going on there. The Cube guy, Cube alum, Chris Lynch stepped down as executive chairman. All this stuff came out about how the executives were taking money off the table and didn't allow the employees to participate in that money raising deal. So that's pissed a lot of people off. And so they're now going through some kind of uncomfortable things, which is unfortunate because DataRobot, I noticed, we haven't covered them that much in "Breaking Analysis", but I've noticed them oftentimes, Erik, in the surveys doing really well. So you would think that company has a lot of potential. But yeah, it's an important space that we're going to continue to watch. Let me ask you Erik, can you contextualize this from a time series standpoint? I mean, how is this changed over time? >> Yeah, again, not show here, but in the data. I'm sorry, go ahead. >> No, I'm sorry. What I meant, I should have interjected. In other words, you would think in a downturn that these emerging companies would be less interesting to buyers 'cause they're more risky. What have you seen? >> Yeah, and it was interesting before we went live, you and I were having this conversation about "Is the downturn stopping people from evaluating these private companies or not," right. In a larger sense, that's really what we're doing here. How are these private companies doing when it comes down to the actual practitioners? The people with the budget, the people with the decision making. And so what I did is, we have historical data as you know, I went back to the Emerging Technology Survey we did in November of 21, right at the crest right before the market started to really fall and everything kind of started to fall apart there. And what I noticed is on the security side, very much so, we're seeing less evaluations than we were in November 21. So I broke it down. On cloud security, net sentiment went from 21% to 16% from November '21. That's a pretty big drop. And again, that sentiment is our one aggregate metric for overall positivity, meaning utilization and actual evaluation of the name. Again in database, we saw it drop a little bit from 19% to 13%. However, in analytics we actually saw it stay steady. So it's pretty interesting that yes, cloud security and security in general is always going to be important. But right now we're seeing less overall net sentiment in that space. But within analytics, we're seeing steady with growing mindshare. And also to your point earlier in machine learning, AI, we're seeing steady net sentiment and mindshare has grown a whopping 25% to 30%. So despite the downturn, we're seeing more awareness of these companies in analytics and machine learning and a steady, actual utilization of them. I can't say the same in security and database. They're actually shrinking a little bit since the end of last year. >> You know it's interesting, we were on a round table, Erik does these round tables with CISOs and CIOs, and I remember one time you had asked the question, "How do you think about some of these emerging tech companies?" And one of the executives said, "I always include somebody in the bottom left of the Gartner Magic Quadrant in my RFPs. I think he said, "That's how I found," I don't know, it was Zscaler or something like that years before anybody ever knew of them "Because they're going to help me get to the next level." So it's interesting to see Erik in these sectors, how they're holding up in many cases. >> Yeah. It's a very important part for the actual IT practitioners themselves. There's always contracts coming up and you always have to worry about your next round of negotiations. And that's one of the roles these guys play. You have to do a POC when contracts come up, but it's also their job to stay on top of the new technology. You can't fall behind. Like everyone's a software company. Now everyone's a tech company, no matter what you're doing. So these guys have to stay in on top of it. And that's what this ETS can do. You can go in here and look and say, "All right, I'm going to evaluate their technology," and it could be twofold. It might be that you're ready to upgrade your technology and they're actually pushing the envelope or it simply might be I'm using them as a negotiation ploy. So when I go back to the big guy who I have full intentions of writing that contract to, at least I have some negotiation leverage. >> Erik, we got to leave it there. I could spend all day. I'm going to definitely dig into this on my own time. Thank you for introducing this, really appreciate your time today. >> I always enjoy it, Dave and I hope everyone out there has a great holiday weekend. Enjoy the rest of the summer. And, you know, I love to talk data. So anytime you want, just point the camera on me and I'll start talking data. >> You got it. I also want to thank the team at ETR, not only Erik, but Darren Bramen who's a data scientist, really helped prepare this data, the entire team over at ETR. I cannot tell you how much additional data there is. We are just scratching the surface in this "Breaking Analysis". So great job guys. I want to thank Alex Myerson. Who's on production and he manages the podcast. Ken Shifman as well, who's just coming back from VMware Explore. Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight help get the word out on social media and in our newsletters. And Rob Hof is our editor in chief over at SiliconANGLE. Does some great editing for us. Thank you. All of you guys. Remember these episodes, they're all available as podcast, wherever you listen. All you got to do is just search "Breaking Analysis" podcast. I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. Or you can email me to get in touch david.vellante@siliconangle.com. You can DM me at dvellante or comment on my LinkedIn posts and please do check out etr.ai for the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Vellante for Erik Bradley and The Cube Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching. Be well. And we'll see you next time on "Breaking Analysis". (upbeat music)

>> From the Cube studios in Palo Alto and Boston, bringing you data driven insights from theCUBE and ETR, this is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> While the precise direction of VMware's future is unknown, given the plan Broadcom acquisition, one thing is clear. The topic of what Broadcom plans will not be the main focus of the agenda at the upcoming VMware Explore event next week in San Francisco. We believe that despite any uncertainty, VMware will lay out for its customers what it sees as its future. And that future is multi-cloud or cross-cloud services, what we call Supercloud. Hello, and welcome to this week's Wikibon Cube Insights powered by ETR. In this breaking analysis, we drill into the latest survey data on VMware from ETR. And we'll share with you the next iteration of the Supercloud definition based on feedback from dozens of contributors. And we'll give you our take on what to expect next week at VMware Explorer 2022. Well, VMware is maturing. You can see it in the numbers. VMware had a solid quarter just this week, which was announced beating earnings and growing the top line by 6%. But it's clear from its financials and the ETR data that we're showing here that VMware's Halcion glory days are behind it. This chart shows the spending profile from ETR's July survey of nearly 1500 IT buyers and CIOs. The survey included 722 VMware customers with the green bars showing elevated spending momentum, ie: growth, either new or growing at more than 6%. And the red bars show lower spending, either down 6% or worse or defections. The gray bars, that's the flat spending crowd, and it really tells a story. Look, nobody's throwing away their VMware platforms. They're just not investing as rapidly as in previous years. The blue line shows net score or spending momentum and subtracts the reds from the greens. The yellow line shows market penetration or pervasiveness in the survey. So the data is pretty clear. It's steady, but it's not remarkable. Now, the timing of the acquisition, quite rightly, is quite good, I would say. Now, this next chart shows the net score and pervasiveness juxtaposed on an XY graph and breaks down the VMware portfolio in those dimensions, the product portfolio. And you can see the dominance of respondents citing VMware as the platform. They might not know exactly which services they use, but they just respond VMware. That's on the X axis. You can see it way to the right. And the spending momentum or the net score is on the Y axis. That red dotted line at 4%, that indicates elevated levels and only VMware cloud on AWS is above that line. Notably, Tanzu has jumped up significantly from previous quarters, with the rest of the portfolio showing steady, as you would expect from a maturing platform. Only carbon black is hovering in the red zone, kind of ironic given the name. We believe that VMware is going to be a major player in cross cloud services, what we refer to as Supercloud. For months, we've been refining the concept and the definition. At Supercloud '22, we had discussions with more than 30 technology and business experts, and we've gathered input from many more. Based on that feedback, here's the definition we've landed on. It's somewhat refined from our earlier definition that we published a couple weeks ago. Supercloud is an emerging computing architecture that comprises a set of services abstracted from the underlying primitives of hyperscale clouds, e.g. compute, storage, networking, security, and other native resources, to create a global system spanning more than one cloud. Supercloud is three essential properties, three deployment models, and three service models. So what are those essential elements, those properties? We've simplified the picture from our last report. We show them here. I'll review them briefly. We're not going to go super in depth here because we've covered this topic a lot. But supercloud, it runs on more than one cloud. It creates that common or identical experience across clouds. It contains a necessary capability that we call a superPaaS that acts as a cloud interpreter, and it has metadata intelligence to optimize for a specific purpose. We'll publish this definition in detail. So again, we're not going to spend a ton of time here today. Now, we've identified three deployment models for Supercloud. The first is a single instantiation, where a control plane runs on one cloud but supports interactions with multiple other clouds. An example we use is Kubernetes cluster management service that runs on one cloud but can deploy and manage clusters on other clouds. The second model is a multi-cloud, multi-region instantiation where a full stack of services is instantiated on multiple clouds and multiple cloud regions with a common interface across them. We've used cohesity as one example of this. And then a single global instance that spans multiple cloud providers. That's our snowflake example. Again, we'll publish this in detail. So we're not going to spend a ton of time here today. Finally, the service models. The feedback we've had is IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS work fine to describe the service models for Supercloud. NetApp's Cloud Volume is a good example in IaaS. VMware cloud foundation and what we expect at VMware Explore is a good PaaS example. And SAP HANA Cloud is a good example of SaaS running as a Supercloud service. That's the SAP HANA multi-cloud. So what is it that we expect from VMware Explore 2022? Well, along with what will be an exciting and speculation filled gathering of the VMware community at the Moscone Center, we believe VMware will lay out its future architectural direction. And we expect it will fit the Supercloud definition that we just described. We think VMware will show its hand on a set of cross-cloud services and will promise a common experience for users and developers alike. As we talked about at Supercloud '22, VMware kind of wants to have its cake, eat it too, and lose weight. And by that, we mean that it will not only abstract the underlying primitives of each of the individual clouds, but if developers want access to them, they will allow that and actually facilitate that. Now, we don't expect VMware to use the term Supercloud, but it will be a cross-cloud multi-cloud services model that they put forth, we think, at VMworld Explore. With IaaS comprising compute, storage, and networking, a very strong emphasis, we believe, on security, of course, a governance and a comprehensive set of data protection services. Now, very importantly, we believe Tanzu will play a leading role in any announcements this coming week, as a purpose-built PaaS layer, specifically designed to create a common experience for cross clouds for data and application services. This, we believe, will be VMware's most significant offering to date in cross-cloud services. And it will position VMware to be a leader in what we call Supercloud. Now, while it remains to be seen what Broadcom exactly intends to do with VMware, we've speculated, others have speculated. We think this Supercloud is a substantial market opportunity generally and for VMware specifically. Look, if you don't own a public cloud, and very few companies do, in the tech business, we believe you better be supporting the build out of superclouds or building a supercloud yourself on top of hyperscale infrastructure. And we believe that as cloud matures, hyperscalers will increasingly I cross cloud services as an opportunity. We asked David Floyer to take a stab at a market model for super cloud. He's really good at these types of things. What he did is he took the known players in cloud and estimated their IaaS and PaaS cloud services, their total revenue, and then took a percentage. So this is super set of just the public cloud and the hyperscalers. And then what he did is he took a percentage to fit the Supercloud definition, as we just shared above. He then added another 20% on top to cover the long tail of Other. Other over time is most likely going to grow to let's say 30%. That's kind of how these markets work. Okay, so this is obviously an estimate, but it's an informed estimate by an individual who has done this many, many times and is pretty well respected in these types of forecasts, these long term forecasts. Now, by the definition we just shared, Supercloud revenue was estimated at about $3 billion in 2022 worldwide, growing to nearly $80 billion by 2030. Now remember, there's not one Supercloud market. It comprises a bunch of purpose-built superclouds that solve a specific problem. But the common attribute is it's built on top of hyperscale infrastructure. So overall, cloud services, including Supercloud, peak by the end of the decade. But Supercloud continues to grow and will take a higher percentage of the cloud market. The reasoning here is that the market will change and compute, will increasingly become distributed and embedded into edge devices, such as automobiles and robots and factory equipment, et cetera, and not necessarily be a discreet... I mean, it still will be, of course, but it's not going to be as much of a discrete component that is consumed via services like EZ2, that will mature. And this will be a key shift to watch in spending dynamics and really importantly, computing economics, the things we've talked about around arm and edge and AI inferencing and new low cost computing architectures at the edge. We're talking not the near edge, like, Lowes and Home Depot, we're talking far edge and embedded devices. Now, whether this becomes a seamless part of Supercloud remains to be seen. Look, if that's how we see it, the current and the future state of Supercloud, and we're committed to keeping the discussion going with an inclusive model that gathers input from all parts of the industry. Okay, that's it for today. Thanks to Alex Morrison, who's on production, and he also manages the podcast. Ken Schiffman, as well, is on production in our Boston office. Kristin Martin and Cheryl Knight, they help us get the word out on social media and in our newsletters. And Rob Hoffe is our editor in chief over at Silicon Angle and does some helpful editing. Thank you, all. Remember these episodes, they're all available as podcasts, wherever you listen. All you got to do is search Breaking Analysis Podcast. I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. You can email me directly at david.vellante@siliconangle.com or DM me @Dvellante or comment on our LinkedIn posts. Please do check out etr.ai. They've got some great enterprise survey research. So please go there and poke around, And if you need any assistance, let them know. This is Dave Vellante for the Cube Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching, and we'll see you next time on Breaking Analysis. (lively music)

>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto and Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is "Breaking Analysis" with Dave Vallante. >> Welcome to this week's Wikibon CUBE Insights powered by ETR. As we exited the isolation economy last year, Supercloud is a term that we introduced to describe something new that was happening in the world of cloud. In this "Breaking Analysis," we address the 10 most frequently asked questions we get around Supercloud. Okay, let's review these frequently asked questions on Supercloud that we're going to try to answer today. Look at an industry that's full of hype and buzzwords. Why the hell does anyone need a new term? Aren't hyperscalers building out Superclouds? We'll try to answer why the term Supercloud connotes something different from hyperscale clouds. And we'll talk about the problems that Superclouds solve specifically, and we'll further define the critical aspects of a Supercloud architecture. We often get asked, "Isn't this just multi-cloud?" Well, we don't think so, and we'll explain why in this "Breaking Analysis." Now, in an earlier episode, we introduced the notion of super PaaS. Well, isn't a plain vanilla PaaS already a super PaaS? Again, we don't think so, and we'll explain why. Who will actually build and who are the players currently building Superclouds? What workloads and services will run on Superclouds? And eight A or number nine, what are some examples that we can share of Supercloud? And finally, we'll answer what you can expect next from us on Supercloud. Okay, let's get started. Why do we need another buzzword? Well, late last year ahead of re:Invent, we were inspired by a post from Jerry Chen called castles in the cloud. Now, in that blog post, he introduced the idea that there were submarkets emerging in cloud that presented opportunities for investors and entrepreneurs. That the cloud wasn't going to suck the hyperscalers, weren't going to suck all the value out of the industry. And so we introduced this notion of Supercloud to describe what we saw as a value layer emerging above the hyperscalers CAPEX gift, we sometimes call it. Now, it turns out that we weren't the only ones using the term, as both Cornell and MIT, have used the phrase in somewhat similar, but different contexts. The point is, something new was happening in the AWS and other ecosystems. It was more than IS and PaaS, and wasn't just SaaS running in the cloud. It was a new architecture that integrates infrastructure, platform and software as services, to solve new problems that the cloud vendors, in our view, weren't addressing by themselves. It seemed to us that the ecosystem was pursuing opportunities across clouds that went beyond conventional implementations of multi-cloud. And we felt there was a structural change going on at the industry level. The Supercloud metaphorically was highlighting. So that's the background on why we felt a new catch phrase was warranted. Love it or hate it, it's memorable and it's what we chose. Now, to that last point about structural industry transformation. Andy Rapaport is sometimes and often credited with identifying the shift from the vertically integrated IBM mainframe era to the fragmented PC microprocesor based era in his HBR article in 1991. In fact, it was David Moschella, who at the time was an IDC analyst who first introduced the concept in 1987, four years before Rapaport's article was published. Moschella saw that it was clear that Intel, Microsoft, Seagate and others would replace the system vendors and put that forth in a graphic that looked similar to the first two on this chart. We don't have to review the shift from IBM as the center of the industry to Wintel. That's well understood. What isn't as well known or accepted is what Moschella put out in his 2018 book called "Seeing Digital" which introduced the idea of the matrix that's shown on the right hand side of this chart. Moschella posited that new services were emerging, built on top of the internet and hyperscale clouds that would integrate other innovations and would define the next era of computing. He used the term matrix, because the conceptual depiction included, not only horizontal technology rows, like the cloud and the internet, but for the first time included connected industry verticals, the columns in this chart. Moschella pointed out that, whereas historically, industry verticals had a closed value chain or stack and ecosystem of R&D and production and manufacturing and distribution. And if you were in that industry, the expertise within that vertical generally stayed within that vertical and was critical to success. But because of digital and data, for the first time, companies were able to traverse industries jump across industries and compete because data enabled them to do that. Examples, Amazon and content, payments, groceries, Apple and payments, and content and so forth. There are many examples. Data was now this unifying enabler and this marked a change in the structure of the technology landscape. And Supercloud is meant to imply more than running in hyperscale clouds. Rather, it's the combination of multiple technologies, enabled by cloud scale with new industry participants from those verticals; financial services, and healthcare, and manufacturing, energy, media, and virtually all and any industry. Kind of an extension of every company is a software company. Basically, every company now has the opportunity to build their own cloud or Supercloud. And we'll come back to that. Let's first address what's different about Superclouds relative to hyperscale clouds. Now, this one's pretty straightforward and obvious, I think. Hyperscale clouds, they're walled gardens where they want your data in their cloud and they want to keep you there. Sure, every cloud player realizes that not all data will go to their particular cloud. So they're meeting customers where their data lives with initiatives like Amazon Outposts and Azure Arc and Google Antos. But at the end of the day, the more homogeneous they can make their environments, the better control, security, costs, and performance they can deliver. The more complex the environment, the more difficult it is to deliver on their brand promises. And, of course, the less margin that's left for them to capture. Will the hyperscalers get more serious about cross cloud services? Maybe, but they have plenty of work to do within their own clouds and within enabling their own ecosystems. They have a long way to go, a lot of runway. So let's talk about specifically, what problems Superclouds solve. We've all seen the stats from IDC or Gartner or whomever, that customers on average use more than one cloud, two clouds, three clouds, five clouds, 20 clouds. And we know these clouds operate in disconnected silos for the most part. And that's a problem, because each cloud requires different skills, because the development environment is different as is the operating environment. They have different APIs, different primitives, and different management tools that are optimized for each respective hyperscale cloud. Their functions and value props don't extend to their competitors' clouds for the most part. Why would they? As a result, there's friction when moving between different clouds. It's hard to share data. It's hard to move work. It's hard to secure and govern data. It's hard to enforce organizational edicts and policies across these clouds and on-prem. Supercloud is an architecture designed to create a single environment that enables management of workloads and data across clouds in an effort to take out complexity, accelerate application development, streamline operations, and share data safely, irrespective of location. It's pretty straightforward, but non-trivial, which is why I always ask a company's CEO and executives if stock buybacks and dividends will yield as much return as building out Superclouds that solve really specific and hard problems and create differential value. Okay, let's dig a bit more into the architectural aspects of Supercloud. In other words, what are the salient attributes of Supercloud? So, first and foremost, a Supercloud runs a set of specific services designed to solve a unique problem, and it can do so in more than one cloud. Superclouds leverage the underlying cloud native tooling of a hyperscale cloud, but they're optimized for a specific objective that aligns with the problem that they're trying to solve. For example, Supercloud might be optimized for lowest cost or lowest latency or sharing data or governing or securing that data or higher performance for networking, for example. But the point is, the collection of services that is being delivered is focused on a unique value proposition that is not being delivered by the hyperscalers across clouds. A Supercloud abstracts the underlying and siloed primitives of the native PaaS layer from the hyperscale cloud, and then using its own specific platform as a service tooling, creates a common experience across clouds for developers and users. And it does so in the most efficient manner, meaning it has the metadata knowledge and management capabilities that can optimize for latency, bandwidth, or recovery or data sovereignty, or whatever unique value that Supercloud is delivering for the specific use case in their domain. And a Supercloud comprises a super PaaS capability that allows ecosystem partners through APIs to add incremental value on top of the Supercloud platform to fill gaps, accelerate features, and of course, innovate. The services can be infrastructure related, they could be application services, they could be data services, security services, user services, et cetera, designed and packaged to bring unique value to customers. Again, that hyperscalers are not delivering across clouds or on premises. Okay, so another common question we get is, "Isn't that just multi-cloud?" And what we'd say to that is yeah, "Yes, but no." You can call it multi-cloud 2.0, if you want. If you want to use, it's kind of a commonly used rubric. But as Dell's Chuck Whitten proclaimed at Dell Technologies World this year, multi-cloud, by design, is different than multi-cloud by default. Meaning, to date, multi-cloud has largely been a symptom of what we've called multi-vendor or of M&A. You buy a company and they happen to use Google cloud. And so you bring it in. And when you look at most so-called multi-cloud implementations, you see things like an on-prem stack, which is wrapped in a container and hosted on a specific cloud. Or increasingly, a technology vendor has done the work of building a cloud native version of their stack and running it on a specific cloud. But historically, it's been a unique experience within each cloud, with virtually no connection between the cloud silos. Supercloud sets out to build incremental value across clouds and above hyperscale CAPEX that goes beyond cloud compatibility within each cloud. So, if you want to call it multi-cloud 2.0, that's fine, but we chose to call it Supercloud. Okay, so at this point you may be asking, "Well isn't PaaS already a version of Supercloud?" And again, we would say, "No." That Supercloud and its corresponding super PaaS layer, which is a prerequisite, gives the freedom to store, process, and manage and secure and connect islands of data across a continuum with a common experience across clouds. And the services offered are specific to that Supercloud and will vary by each offering. OpenShift, for example, can be used to construct a super PaaS, but in and of itself, isn't a super PaaS, it's generic. A super PaaS might be developed to support, for instance, ultra low latency database work. It would unlikely, again, taking the OpenShift example, it's unlikely that off the shelf OpenShift would be used to develop such a low latency, super PaaS layer for ultra low latency database work. The point is, Supercloud and its inherent super PaaS will be optimized to solve specific problems like that low latency example for distributed databases or fast backup in recovery for data protection and ransomware, or data sharing or data governance. Highly specific use cases that the Supercloud is designed to solve for. Okay, another question we often get is, "Who has a Supercloud today and who's building a Supercloud and who are the contenders?" Well, most companies that consider themselves cloud players will, we believe, be building or are building Superclouds. Here's a common ETR graphic that we like to show with net score or spending momentum on the Y axis, and overlap or pervasiveness in the ETR surveys on the X axis. And we've randomly chosen a number of players that we think are in the Supercloud mix. And we've included the hyperscalers because they are enablers. Now, remember, this is a spectrum of maturity. It's a maturity model. And we've added some of those industry players that we see building Superclouds like Capital One, Goldman Sachs, Walmart. This is in deference to Moschella's observation around the matrix and the industry structural changes that are going on. This goes back to every company being a software company. And rather than pattern match and outdated SaaS model, we see new industry structures emerging where software and data and tools specific to an industry will lead the next wave of innovation and bring in new value that traditional technology companies aren't going to solve. And the hyperscalers aren't going to solve. We've talked a lot about Snowflake's data cloud as an example of Supercloud. After being at Snowflake Summit, we're more convinced than ever that they're headed in this direction. VMware is clearly going after cross cloud services, perhaps creating a new category. Basically, every large company we see either pursuing Supercloud initiatives or thinking about it. Dell showed Project Alpine at Dell Tech World. That's a Supercloud. Snowflake introducing a new application development capability based on their super PaaS, our term, of course. They don't use the phrase. Mongo, Couchbase, Nutanix, Pure Storage, Veeam, CrowdStrike, Okta, Zscaler. Yeah, all of those guys. Yes, Cisco and HPE. Even though on theCUBE at HPE Discover, Fidelma Russo said on theCUBE, she wasn't a fan of cloaking mechanisms. (Dave laughing) But then we talked to HPE's head of storage services, Omer Asad, and he's clearly headed in the direction that we would consider Supercloud. Again, those cross cloud services, of course, their emphasis is connecting as well on-prem. That single experience, which traditionally has not existed with multi-cloud or hybrid. And we're seeing the emergence of smaller companies like Aviatrix and Starburst and Clumio and others that are building versions of Superclouds that solve for a specific problem for their customers. Even ISVs like Adobe, ADP, we've talked to UiPath. They seem to be looking at new ways to go beyond the SaaS model and add value within their cloud ecosystem, specifically around data as part of their and their customer's digital transformations. So yeah, pretty much every tech vendor with any size or momentum, and new industry players are coming out of hiding and competing, building Superclouds that look a lot like Moschella's matrix, with machine intelligence and blockchains and virtual realities and gaming, all enabled by the internet and hyperscale cloud CAPEX. So it's moving fast and it's the future in our opinion. So don't get too caught up in the past or you'll be left behind. Okay, what about examples? We've given a number in the past but let's try to be a little bit more specific. Here are a few we've selected and we're going to answer the two questions in one section here. What workloads and services will run in Superclouds and what are some examples? Let's start with analytics. Our favorite example of Snowflake. It's one of the furthest along with its data cloud, in our view. It's a Supercloud optimized for data sharing and governance, and query performance, and security, and ecosystem enablement. When you do things inside of that data cloud, what we call a super data cloud. Again, our term, not theirs. You can do things that you could not do in a single cloud. You can't do this with Redshift. You can't do this with SQL server. And they're bringing new data types now with merging analytics or at least accommodate analytics and transaction type data and bringing open source tooling with things like Apache Iceberg. And so, it ticks the boxes we laid out earlier. I would say that a company like Databricks is also in that mix, doing it, coming at it from a data science perspective trying to create that consistent experience for data scientists and data engineering across clouds. Converge databases, running transaction and analytic workloads is another example. Take a look at what Couchbase is doing with Capella and how it's enabling stretching the cloud to the edge with arm based platforms and optimizing for low latency across clouds, and even out to the edge. Document database workloads, look at Mongo DB. A very developer friendly platform that where the Atlas is moving toward a Supercloud model, running document databases very, very efficiently. How about general purpose workloads? This is where VMware comes into play. Very clearly, there's a need to create a common operating environment across clouds and on-prem and out to the edge. And I say, VMware is hard at work on that, managing and moving workloads and balancing workloads, and being able to recover very quickly across clouds for everyday applications. Network routing, take a look at what Aviatrix is doing across clouds. Industry workloads, we see Capital One. It announced its cost optimization platform for Snowflake, piggybacking on Snowflake's Supercloud or super data cloud. And in our view, it's very clearly going to go after other markets. It's going to test it out with Snowflake, optimizing on AWS, and it's going to expand to other clouds as Snowflake's business and those other clouds grows. Walmart working with Microsoft to create an on-premed Azure experience that's seamless. Yes, that counts, on-prem counts. If you can create that seamless and continuous experience, identical experience from on-prem to a hyperscale cloud, we would include that as a Supercloud. We've written about what Goldman is doing. Again, connecting its on-prem data and software tooling, and other capabilities to AWS for scale. And you can bet dollars to donuts that Oracle will be building a Supercloud in healthcare with its Cerner acquisition. Supercloud is everywhere you look. So I'm sorry, naysayers, it's happening all around us. So what's next? Well, with all the industry buzz and debate about the future, John Furrier and I have decided to host an event in Palo Alto. We're motivated and inspired to further this conversation. And we welcome all points of view, positive, negative, multi-cloud, Supercloud, HyperCloud, all welcome. So theCUBE on Supercloud is coming on August 9th out of our Palo Alto studios. We'll be running a live program on the topic. We've reached out to a number of industry participants; VMware, Snowflake, Confluent, Skyhigh Security, G. Written House's new company, HashiCorp, CloudFlare. We've hit up Red Hat and we expect many of these folks will be in our studios on August 9th. And we've invited a number of industry participants as well that we're excited to have on. From industry, from financial services, from healthcare, from retail, we're inviting analysts, thought leaders, investors. We're going to have more detail in the coming weeks, but for now, if you're interested, please reach out to me or John with how you think you can advance the discussion, and we'll see if we can fit you in. So mark your calendars, stay tuned for more information. Okay, that's it for today. Thanks to Alex Myerson who handles production and manages the podcast for "Breaking Analysis." And I want to thank Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight. They help get the word out on social and in our newsletters. And Rob Hof is our editor in chief over at SiliconANGLE, who does a lot of editing and appreciate you posting on SiliconANGLE, Rob. Thanks to all of you. Remember, all these episodes are available as podcasts wherever you listen. All you got to do is search, breaking analysis podcast. I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. Or you can email me directly at david.vellante@siliconangle.com. Or DM me @DVallante, or comment on my LinkedIn post. And please, do check out etr.ai for the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. We'll be at AWS NYC summit next Tuesday, July 12th. So if you're there, please do stop by and say hello to theCUBE. It's at the Javits Center. This is Dave Vallante for theCUBE Insights, powered by ETR. Thanks for watching. And we'll see you next time on "Breaking Analysis." (slow music)

>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto, in Boston bringing you Data Driven Insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> In the pre-cloud era hardware companies would run benchmarks, showing how database and or application performance ran better on their systems relative to competitors or previous generation boxes. And they would make a big deal out of it. And the independent software vendors, you know they'd do a little golf clap if you will, in the form of a joint press release it became a game of leaprog amongst hardware competitors. That was pretty commonplace over the years. The Dell Snowflake Deal underscores that the value proposition between hardware companies and ISVs is changing and has much more to do with distribution channels, volumes and the amount of data that lives On-Prem in various storage platforms. For cloud native ISVs like Snowflake they're realizing that despite their Cloud only dogma they have to grit their teeth and deal with On-premises data or risk getting shut out of evolving architectures. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon Cube Insights powered by ETR. In this breaking analysis, we unpack what little is known about the Snowflake announcement from Dell Technologies World and discuss the implications of a changing Cloud landscape. We'll also share some new data for Cloud and Database platforms from ETR that shows Snowflake has actually entered the Earth's orbit when it comes to spending momentum on its platform. Now, before we get into the news I want you to listen to Frank's Slootman's answer to my question as to whether or not Snowflake would ever architect the platform to run On-Prem because it's doable technically, here's what he said, play the clip >> Forget it, this will only work in the Public Cloud. Because it's, this is how the utility model works, right. I think everybody is coming through this realization, right? I mean, excuses are running out at this point. You know, we think that it'll, people will come to the Public Cloud a lot sooner than we will ever come to the Private Cloud. It's not that we can't run a private Cloud. It's just diminishes the potential and the value that we bring. >> So you may be asking yourselves how do you square that circle? Because basically the Dell Snowflake announcement is about bringing Snowflake to the private cloud, right? Or is it let's get into the news and we'll find out. Here's what we know at Dell Technologies World. One of the more buzzy announcements was the, by the way this was a very well attended vet event. I should say about I would say 8,000 people by my estimates. But anyway, one of the more buzzy announcements was Snowflake can now run analytics on Non-native Snowflake data that lives On-prem in a Dell object store Dell's ECS to start with. And eventually it's software defined object store. Here's Snowflake's clark, Snowflake's Clark Patterson describing how it works this past week on theCUBE. Play the clip. The way it works is I can now access Non-native Snowflake data using what materialized views, external tables How does that work? >> Some combination of the, all the above. So we've had in Snowflake, a capability called External Tables, which you refer to, it goes hand in hand with this notion of external stages. Basically there's a through the combination of those two capabilities, it's a metadata layer on data, wherever it resides. So customers have actually used this in Snowflake for data lake data outside of Snowflake in the Cloud, up until this point. So it's effectively an extension of that functionality into the Dell On-Premises world, so that we can tap into those things. So we use the external stages to expose all the metadata about what's in the Dell environment. And then we build external tables in Snowflake. So that data looks like it is in Snowflake. And then the experience for the analyst or whomever it is, is exactly as though that data lives in the Snowflake world. >> So as Clark explained, this capability of External tables has been around in the Cloud for a while, mainly to suck data out of Cloud data lakes. Snowflake External Tables use file level metadata, for instance, the name of the file and the versioning so that it can be queried in a stage. A stage is just an external location outside of Snowflake. It could be an S3 bucket or an Azure Blob and it's soon will be a Dell object store. And in using this feature, the Dell looks like it lives inside of Snowflake and Clark essentially, he's correct to say to an analyst that looks exactly like the data is in Snowflake, but uh, not exactly the data's read only which means you can't do what are called DML operations. DML stands for Data Manipulation Language and allows for things like inserting data into tables or deleting and modifying existing data. But the data can be queried. However, the performance of those queries to External Tables will almost certainly be slower. Now users can build things like materialized views which are going to speed things up a bit, but at the end of the day, it's going to run faster than the Cloud. And you can be almost certain that's where Snowflake wants it to run, but some organizations can't or won't move data into the Cloud for a variety of reasons, data sovereignty, compliance security policies, culture, you know, whatever. So data can remain in place On-prem, or it can be moved into the Public Cloud with this new announcement. Now, the compute today presumably is going to be done in the Public Cloud. I don't know where else it's going to be done. They really didn't talk about the compute side of things. Remember, one of Snowflake's early innovations was to separate compute from storage. And what that gave them is you could more efficiently scale with unlimited resources when you needed them. And you could shut off the compute when you don't need us. You didn't have to buy, and if you need more storage you didn't have to buy more compute and vice versa. So everybody in the industry has copied that including AWS with Redshift, although as we've reported not as elegantly as Snowflake did. RedShift's more of a storage tiering solution which minimizes the compute required but you can't really shut it off. And there are companies like Vertica with Eon Mode that have enabled this capability to be done On-prem, you know, but of course in that instance you don't have unlimited elastic compute scale on-Prem but with solutions like Dell Apex and HPE GreenLake, you can certainly, you can start to simulate that Cloud elasticity On-prem. I mean, it's not unlimited but it's sort of gets you there. According to a Dell Snowflake joint statement, the companies the quote, the companies will pursue product integrations and joint go to market efforts in the second half of 2022. So that's a little vague and kind of benign. It's not really clear when this is going to be available based on that statement from the two first, but, you know, we're left wondering will Dell develop an On-Prem compute capability and enable queries to run locally maybe as part of an extended apex offering? I mean, we don't know really not sure there's even a market for that but it's probably a good bet that again, Snowflake wants that data to land in the Snowflake data Cloud kind of makes you wonder how this deal came about. You heard Sloop on earlier Snowflake has always been pretty dogmatic about getting data into its native snowflake format to enable the best performance as we talked about but also data sharing and governance. But you could imagine that data architects they're building out their data mesh we've reported on this quite extensively and their data fabric and those visions around that. And they're probably telling Snowflake, Hey if you want to be a strategic partner of ours you're going to have to be more inclusive of our data. That for whatever reason we're not putting in your Cloud. So Snowflake had to kind of hold its nose and capitulate. Now the good news is it further opens up Snowflakes Tam the total available market. It's obviously good marketing posture. And ultimately it provides an on ramp to the Cloud. And we're going to come back to that shortly but let's look a little deeper into what's happening with data platforms and to do that we'll bring in some ETR data. Now, let me just say as companies like Dell, IBM, Cisco, HPE, Lenovo, Pure and others build out their hybrid Clouds. The cold hard fact is not only do they have to replicate the Cloud Operating Model. You will hear them talk about that a lot, but they got to do that. So it, and that's critical from a user experience but in order to gain that flywheel momentum they need to build a robust ecosystem that goes beyond their proprietary portfolios. And, you know, honestly they're really not even in the first inning most companies and for the likes of Snowflake to sort of flip this, they've had to recognize that not everything is moving into the Cloud. Now, let's bring up the next slide. One of the big areas of discussion at Dell Tech World was Apex. That's essentially Dell's nascent as a service offering. Apex is infrastructure as a Service Cloud On-prem and obviously has the vision of connecting to the Cloud and across Clouds and out to the Edge. And it's no secret that database is one of the most important ingredients of infrastructure as a service generally in Cloud Infrastructure specifically. So this chart here shows the ETR data for data platforms inside of Dell accounts. So the beauty of ETR platform is you can cut data a million different ways. So we cut it. We said, okay, give us the Cloud platforms inside Dell accounts, how are they performing? Now, this is a two dimensional graphic. You got net score or spending momentum on the vertical axis and what ETR now calls Overlap formally called Market Share which is a measure of pervasiveness in the survey. That's on the horizontal axis that red dotted line at 40% represents highly elevated spending on the Y. The table insert shows the raw data for how the dots are positioned. Now, the first call out here is Snowflake. According to ETR quote, after 13 straight surveys of astounding net scores, Snowflake has finally broken the trend with its net score dropping below the 70% mark among all respondents. Now, as you know, net score is measured by asking customers are you adding the platform new? That's the lime green in the bar that's pointing from Snowflake in the graph and or are you increasing spend by 6% or more? That's the forest green is spending flat that's the gray is you're spend decreasing by 6% or worse. That's the pinkish or are you decommissioning the platform bright red which is essentially zero for Snowflake subtract the reds from the greens and you get a net score. Now, what's somewhat interesting is that snowflakes net score overall in the survey is 68 which is still huge, just under 70%, but it's net score inside the Dell account base drops to the low sixties. Nonetheless, this chart tells you why Snowflake it's highly elevated spending momentum combined with an increasing presence in the market over the past two years makes it a perfect initial data platform partner for Dell. Now and in the Ford versus Ferrari dynamic. That's going on between the likes of Dell's apex and HPE GreenLake database deals are going to become increasingly important beyond what we're seeing with this recent Snowflake deal. Now noticed by the way HPE is positioned on this graph with its acquisition of map R which is now part of HPE Ezmeral. But if these companies want to be taken seriously as Cloud players, they need to further expand their database affinity to compete ideally spinning up databases as part of their super Clouds. We'll come back to that that span multiple Clouds and include Edge data platforms. We're a long ways off from that. But look, there's Mongo, there's Couchbase, MariaDB, Cloudera or Redis. All of those should be on the short list in my view and why not Microsoft? And what about Oracle? Look, that's to be continued on maybe as a future topic in a, in a Breaking Analysis but I'll leave you with this. There are a lot of people like John Furrier who believe that Dell is playing with fire in the Snowflake deal because he sees it as a one way ticket to the Cloud. He calls it a one way door sometimes listen to what he said this past week. >> I would say that that's a dangerous game because we've seen that movie before, VMware and AWS. >> Yeah, but that we've talked about this don't you think that was the right move for VMware? >> At the time, but if you don't nurture the relationship AWS will take all those customers ultimately from VMware. >> Okay, so what does the data say about what John just said? How is VMware actually doing in Cloud after its early missteps and then its subsequent embracing of AWS and other Clouds. Here's that same XY graphic spending momentum on the Y and pervasiveness on the X and the same table insert that plots the dots and the, in the breakdown of Dell's net score granularity. You see that at the bottom of the chart in those colors. So as usual, you see Azure and AWS up and to the right with Google well behind in a distant third, but still in the mix. So very impressive for Microsoft and AWS to have both that market presence in such elevated spending momentum. But the story here in context is that the VMware Cloud on AWS and VMware's On-Prem Cloud like VMware Cloud Foundation VCF they're doing pretty well in the market. Look, at HPE, gaining some traction in Cloud. And remember, you may not think HPE and Dell and VCF are true Cloud but these are customers answering the survey. So their perspective matters more than the purest view. And the bad news is the Dell Cloud is not setting the world on fire from a momentum standpoint on the vertical axis but it's above the line of zero and compared to Dell's overall net score of 20 you could see it's got some work to do. Okay, so overall Dell's got a pretty solid net score to you know, positive 20, as I say their Cloud perception needs to improve. Look, Apex has to be the Dell Cloud brand not Dell reselling VMware. And that requires more maturity of Apex it's feature sets, its selling partners, its compensation models and it's ecosystem. And I think Dell clearly understands that. I think they're pretty open about that. Now this includes partners that go beyond being just sellers has to include more tech offerings in the marketplace. And actually they got to build out a marketplace like Cloud Platform. So they got a lot of work to do there. And look, you've got Oracle coming up. I mean they're actually kind of just below the magic 40% in the line which is pro it's pretty impressive. And we've been telling you for years, you can hate Oracle all you want. You can hate its price, it's closed system all of that it's red stack shore. You can say it's legacy. You can say it's old and outdated, blah, blah, blah. You can say Oracle is irrelevant in trouble. You are dead wrong. When it comes to mission critical workloads. Oracle is the king of the hill. They're a founder led company that knows exactly what it's doing and they're showing Cloud momentum. Okay, the last point is that while Microsoft AWS and Google have major presence as shown on the X axis. VMware and Oracle now have more than a hundred citations in the survey. You can see that on the insert in the right hand, right most column. And IBM had better keep the momentum from last quarter going, or it won't be long before they get passed by Dell and HP in Cloud. So look, John might be right. And I would think Snowflake quietly agrees that this Dell deal is all about access to Dell's customers and their data. So they can Hoover it into the Snowflake Data Cloud but the data right now, anyway doesn't suggest that's happening with VMware. Oh, by the way, we're keeping an eye close eye on NetApp who last September ink, a similar deal to VMware Cloud on AWS to see how that fares. Okay, let's wrap with some closing thoughts on what this deal means. We learned a lot from the Cloud generally in AWS, specifically in two pizza teams, working backwards, customer obsession. We talk about flywheel all the time and we've been talking today about marketplaces. These have all become common parlance and often fundamental narratives within strategic plans investor decks and customer presentations. Cloud ecosystems are different. They take both competition and partnerships to new heights. You know, when I look at Azure service offerings like Apex, GreenLake and similar services and I see the vendor noise or hear the vendor noise that's being made around them. I kind of shake my head and ask, you know which movie were these companies watching last decade? I really wish we would've seen these initiatives start to roll out in 2015, three years before AWS announced Outposts not three years after but Hey, the good news is that not only was Outposts a wake up call for the On-Prem crowd but it's showing how difficult it is to build a platform like Outposts and bring it to On-Premises. I mean, Outpost isn't currently even a rounding era in the marketplace. It really doesn't do much in terms of database support and support of other services. And, you know, it's unclear where that that is going. And I don't think it has much momentum. And so the Hybrid Cloud Vendors they've had time to figure it out. But now it's game on, companies like Dell they're promising a consistent experience between On-Prem into the Cloud, across Clouds and out to the Edge. They call it MultCloud which by the way my view has really been multi-vendor Chuck, Chuck Whitten. Who's the new co-COO of Dell called it Multi-Cloud by default. (laughing) That's really, I think an accurate description of that. I call this new world Super Cloud. To me, it's different than MultiCloud. It's a layer that runs on top of hyperscale infrastructure kind of hides the underlying complexity of the Cloud. It's APIs, it's primitives. And it stretches not only across Clouds but out to the Edge. That's a big vision and that's going to require some seriously intense engineering to build out. It's also going to require partnerships that go beyond the portfolios of companies like Dell like their own proprietary stacks if you will. It's going to have to replicate the Cloud Operating Model and to do that, you're going to need more and more deals like Snowflake and even deeper than Snowflake, not just in database. Sure, you'll need to have a catalog of databases that run in your On-Prem and Hybrid and Super Cloud but also other services that customers can tap. I mean, can you imagine a day when Dell offers and embraces a directly competitive service inside of apex. I have trouble envisioning that, you know not with their historical posture, you think about companies like, you know, Nutanix, you know, or Cisco where they really, you know those relationships cooled quite quickly but you know, look, think about it. That's what AWS does. It offers for instance, Redshift and Snowflake side by side happily and the Redshift guys they probably hate Snowflake. I wouldn't blame them, but the EC Two Folks, they love them. And Adam SloopesKy understands that ISVs like Snowflake are a key part of the Cloud ecosystem. Again, I have a hard time envisioning that occurring with Dell or even HPE, you know maybe less so with HPE, but what does this imply that the Edge will allow companies like Dell to a reach around on the Cloud and somehow create a new type of model that begrudgingly accommodates the Public Cloud but drafts of the new momentum of the Edge, which right now to these companies is kind of mostly telco and retail. It's hard to see that happening. I think it's got to evolve in a more comprehensive and inclusive fashion. What's much more likely is companies like Dell are going to substantially replicate that Cloud Operating Model for the pieces that they own pieces that they control which admittedly are big pieces of the market. But unless they're able to really tap that ecosystem magic they're not going to be able to grow much beyond their existing install bases. You take that lime green we showed you earlier that new adoption metric from ETR as an example, by my estimates, AWS and Azure are capturing new accounts at a rate between three to five times faster than Dell and HPE. And in the more mature US and mere markets it's probably more like 10 X and a major reason is because of the Cloud's robust ecosystem and the optionality and simplicity of transaction that that is bringing to customers. Now, Dell for its part is a hundred billion dollar revenue company. And it has the capability to drive that kind of dynamic. If it can pivot its partner ecosystem mindset from kind of resellers to Cloud services and technology optionality. Okay, that's it for now? Thanks to my colleagues, Stephanie Chan who helped research topics for Breaking Analysis. Alex Myerson is on the production team. Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight and Rob Hof, on editorial they helped get the word out and thanks to Jordan Anderson for the new Breaking Analysis branding and graphics package. Remember these episodes are all available as podcasts wherever you listen. All you do is search Breaking Analysis podcasts. You could check out ETR website @etr.ai. We publish a full report every week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. You want to get in touch. @dave.vellente @siliconangle.com. You can DM me @dvellante. You can make a comment on our LinkedIn posts. This is Dave Vellante for the Cube Insights powered by ETR. Have a great week, stay safe, be well. And we'll see you next time. (upbeat music)

>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> New data from ETR's soon to be released April survey, shows a clear deceleration in spending and a more cautious posture from technology buyers. Just this week, we saw sell side downgrades in hardware companies like Dell and HP and revised guidance from high flyer UiPath, citing exposures to Russia, Europe and certain sales execution challenges, but these headlines, we think are a canary in the coal mine. According to ETR analysis and channel checks in theCUBE, the real story is these issues are not isolated. Rather we're seeing signs of caution from buyers across the board in enterprise tech. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon CUBE insights powered by ETR. In this Breaking Analysis, we are the bearers of bad news. Don't shoot the messenger. We'll share a first look at fresh data that suggests a tightening in tech spending calling for 6% growth this year which is below our January prediction of 8% for 2022. Now, unfortunately the party may be coming to an end at least for a while. You know, it's really not surprising, right? We've had a two year record run in tech spending and meteoric rises in high flying technology stocks. Hybrid work, equipping and securing remote workers. The forced march to digital that we talk about sometimes. These were all significant tailwinds for tech companies. The NASDAQ peaked late last year and then as you can see in this chart, bottomed in mid-March of 2022, and it made a nice run up through the 29th of last month, but the mini rally appears to be in jeopardy with FED rate hikes, Russia, supply chain challenges. There's a lot of uncertainty so we should expect the C-suite to be saying, hey, wait slow down. Now we don't think the concerns are confined to companies with exposure to Russia and Europe. We think it's more broad based than that and we're seeing caution from technology companies and tech buyers that we think is prudent, given the conditions. You know, looks like the two year party has ended and as my ETR colleague Erik Bradley said, a little hangover shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. So let's get right to the new spending data. I'm limited to what I can share with you today because ETR is in its quiet period and hasn't released full results yet outside of its client base. But, they did put out an alert today and I can share this slide. It shows the expectation on spending growth from more than a thousand CIOs and IT buyers who responded in the most recent survey. It measures their expectations for spending. The key focus areas that I want you to pay attention to in this data are the yellow bars. The most recent survey is the yellow compared to the blue and the gray bars, which are the December and September '21 surveys respectively. And you can see a steep drop from last year in Q1, lowered expectations for Q2 in the far right, a drop from nearly 9% last September to around 6% today. Now you may think a 200 basis point downgrade from our prediction in January of 8% seems somewhat benign, but in a $4 trillion IT market, that's 80 billion coming off the income statements of some tech companies. Now the good news is that 6% growth is still very healthy and higher than pre pandemic spending levels. And the buyers we've talked to this week are saying, look, we're still spending money. We just have to be more circumspect about where and how fast. Now, there were a few other callouts in the ETR data and in my discussions today with Erik Bradley on this. First, it looks like in response to expected supply chain constraints that buyers pulled forward their orders late last year and earlier this year. You remember when we couldn't buy toilet paper, people started the stockpile and it created this rubber banding effect. So we see clear signs of receding momentum in the PC and laptop market. But as we said, this is not isolated to PCs, UiPath's earning guidance confirm this but the story doesn't end there. This isn't isolated to UiPath in our view, rather it's a more based slowdown. The other big sign is spending in outsourced IT which is showing a meaningful deceleration in the last survey, showing a net score drop from 13% in January to 6% today. Net score remember is a measure of the net percentage of customers in the survey that on balance are spending more than last survey. It's derived by subtracting the percent of customers spending less from those spending more. And there's a, that's a 700 basis point drop in three months. This isn't a market where you can't hire enough people. The percent of companies hiring has gone from 10% during the pandemic to 50% today according to recent data from ETR. And we know there's still an acute skills shortage. So you would expect more IT outsourcing, but you don't see that in the data, it's down. And as this quote from Erik Bradley explains, historically, when outsourced IT drops like this, especially in a tight labor market, it's not good news for IT spending. All right, now, the other interesting callout from ETR were some specific company names that appear to be seeing the biggest change in spending momentum. Here's the list of those companies that all have meaningful exposure to Europe. That's really where the focus was. SAP has big exposure to on-premises installations and of course, Europe as well. ServiceNow has European exposure and also broad based exposure in IT in across the globe, especially in the US. Zoom didn't go to the moon, no surprise there given the quasi return to work and Zoom fatigue. McAfee is a bit of a concern because security seemed to be one of those areas, when you look at some of the other data, that is per actually insulated from all the spending caution. Of course we saw the Okta hack and we're going to cover that next week with hopefully some new data from ETR, but generally security's been holding up pretty well. You look at CrowdStrike, you look at Zscaler in particular. Adobe's another company that's had a nice bounce in the last couple of weeks. Accenture, again, speaks to that outsourcing headwinds that we mentioned earlier. And now the Google Cloud platform is a bit of a concern. It's still elevated overall, you know but down and well down in Europe. Under that magic, you know we often show that magic 40% dotted line, that red dotted line of net score anything above that we cite as elevated. Well, some important callouts to hear that you see companies that have Euro exposure. And again, we see this as just not confined to Europe and this is something we're going to pay close attention to and continue to report on in the next several weeks and months. All right, so what should we expect from here? The Ark investment stocks of Cathie Wood fame have been tracking in a downward trend since last November, meaning, you know, these high PE stocks are making lower lows and higher, sorry, lower highs and lower lows since then, right? The trend is not their friend. Investors I talk to are being much more cautious about buying the dip. They're raising cash and being a little bit more patient. You know, traders can trade in this environment but unless you can pay attention to in a minute by minute you're going to get whipsawed. Investors tell me that they're still eyeing big tech even though Apple has been on a recent tear and has some exposure with supply change challenges, they're looking for maybe entry points in, within that chop for Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Alphabet. And look, as I've been stressing, 6% spending growth is still very solid. It's a case of resetting the outlook relative to previous expectations. So when you zoom out and look at the growth in data, getting digital right, security investments, automation, cloud, AI containers, all the fundamentals are really strong and they have not changed. They're all powering this new digital economy and we believe it's just prudence versus a shift in the importance of IT. Now, one point of caution is there's a lot of discussion around a shift in global economies. Supply chain uncertainty, persistent semiconductor shortages especially in areas like, you know driver ICs and boring things like parts for displays and analog and micro controllers and power regulators. Stuff that's, you know, just not playing nice these days and wreaking havoc. And this creates uncertainty, which sometimes can pick up momentum in a snowballing effect. And that's something that we're watching closely and we're going to be vigilant reporting to you when we see changes in the data and in our forecast even when we think our forecast are wrong. Okay, that's it for today. Thanks to Alex Merson who does the production and podcasts for Breaking Analysis and Stephanie Chan who provides background research. Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight, and all theCUBE writers they help get the word out, and thanks to Rob Hof, our EIC over at SiliconANGLE. Remember I publish weekly on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. These episodes are all available as podcasts wherever you listen. All you got to do is search Breaking Analysis podcasts. etr.ai that's where you can get access to all this survey data and make your own cuts. It's awesome, check that out. Keep in touch with me. You can email me at dave.vellante@siliconangle.com. You can hit me up on LinkedIn. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE insights powered by ETR. Be safe, stay well, and we'll see you next time. (gentle music)

>> From "theCUBE" studios in Palo Alto, in Boston, bringing you data driven insights from "theCUBE" and ETR. This is "Breaking Analysis" with Dave Vellante. >> There are very few political issues that get bipartisan support these days, nevermind consensus spanning geopolitical boundaries. But whether we're talking across the aisle or over the pond, there seems to be common agreement that the power of big tech firms should be regulated. But the government's track record when it comes to antitrust aimed at big tech is actually really mixed, mixed at best. History has shown that market forces rather than public policy have been much more effective at curbing monopoly power in the technology industry. Hello, and welcome to this week's "Wikibon CUBE" insights powered by ETR. In this "Breaking Analysis" we welcome in frequent "CUBE" contributor Dave Moschella, author and senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Dave, welcome, good to see you again. >> Hey, thanks Dave, good to be here. >> So you just recently published an article, we're going to bring it up here and I'll read the title, "Theory Aside, Antitrust Advocates Should Keep Their "Big Tech" Ambitions Narrow". And in this post you argue that big sweeping changes like breaking apart companies to moderate monopoly power in the tech industry have been ineffective compared to market forces, but you're not saying government shouldn't be involved rather you're suggesting that more targeted measures combined with market forces are the right answer. Can you maybe explain a little bit more the premise behind your research and some of your conclusions? >> Sure, and first let's go back to that title, when I said, theory aside, that is referring to a huge debate that's going on in global antitrust circles these days about whether antitrust should follow the traditional path of being invoked when there's real harm, demonstrable harm to consumers or a new theory that says that any sort of vast monopoly power inevitably will be bad for competition and consumers at some point, so your best to intervene now to avoid harms later. And that school, which was a very minor part of the antitrust world for many, many years is now quite ascendant and the debate goes on doesn't matter which side of that you're on the questions sort of there well, all right, well, if you're going to do something to take on big tech and clearly many politicians, regulators are sort of issuing to do something, what would you actually do? And what are the odds that that'll do more good than harm? And that was really the origins of the piece and trying to take a historical view of that. >> Yeah, I learned a new word, thank you. Neo-brandzian had to look it up, but basically you're saying that traditionally it was proving consumer harm versus being proactive about the possibility or likelihood of consumer harm. >> Correct, and that's a really big shift that a lot of traditional antitrust people strongly object to, but is now sort of the trendy and more send and view. >> Got it, okay, let's look a little deeper into the history of tech monopolies and government action and see what we can learn from that. We put together this slide that we can reference. It shows the three historical targets in the tech business and now the new ones. In 1969, the DOJ went after IBM, Big Blue and it's 13 years later, dropped its suit. And then in 1984 the government broke Ma Bell apart and in the late 1990s, went after Microsoft, I think it was 1998 in the Wintel monopoly. And recently in an interview with tech journalist, Kara Swisher, the FTC chair Lena Khan claimed that the government played a major role in moderating the power of tech giants historically. And I think she even specifically referenced Microsoft or maybe Kara did and basically said the industry and consumers from the dominance of companies like Microsoft. So Dave, let's briefly talk about and Kara by the way, didn't really challenge that, she kind of let it slide. But let's talk about each of these and test this concept a bit. Were the government actions in these instances necessary? What were the outcomes and the consequences? Maybe you could start with IBM and AT&T. >> Yeah, it's a big topic and there's a lot there and a lot of history, but I might just sort of introduce by saying for whatever reasons antitrust has been part of the entire information technology industry history from mainframe to the current period and that slide sort of gives you that. And the reasons for that are I think once that we sort of know the economies of scale, network effects, lock in safe choices, lot of things that explain it, but the good bit about that is we actually have so much history of this and we can at least see what's happened in the past and when you look at IBM and AT&T they both were massive antitrust cases. The one against IBM was dropped and it was dropped in as you say, in 1980. Well, what was going on in at that time, IBM was sort of considered invincible and unbeatable, but it was 1981 that the personal computer came around and within just a couple of years the world could see that the computing paradigm had change from main frames and minis to PCs lines client server and what have you. So IBM in just a couple of years went from being unbeatable, you can't compete with them, we have to break up with them to being incredibly vulnerable and in trouble and never fully recovered and is sort of a shell of what it once was. And so the market took care of that and no action was really necessary just by everybody thinking there was. The case of AT&T, they did act and they broke up the company and I would say, first question is, was that necessary? Well, lots of countries didn't do that and the reality is 1980 breaking it up into long distance and regional may have made some sense, but by the 1990 it was pretty clear that the telecom world was going to change dramatically from long distance and fixed wires services to internet services, data services, wireless services and all of these things that we're going to restructure the industry anyways. But AT& T one to me is very interesting because of the unintended consequences. And I would say that the main unintended consequence of that was America's competitiveness in telecommunications took a huge hit. And today, to this day telecommunications is dominated by European, Chinese and other firms. And the big American sort of players of the time AT&T which Western Electric became Lucent, Lucent is now owned by Nokia and is really out of it completely and most notably and compellingly Bell Labs, the Bell Labs once the world's most prominent research institution now also a shell of itself and as it was part of Lucent is also now owned by the Finnish company Nokia. So that restructuring greatly damaged America's core strength in telecommunications hardware and research and one can argue we've never recovered right through this 5IG today. So it's a very good example of the market taking care of, the big problem, but meddling leading to some unintended consequences that have hurt the American competitiveness and as we'll talk about, probably later, you can see some of that going on again today and in the past with Microsoft and Intel. >> Right, yeah, Bell Labs was an American gem, kind of like Xerox PARC and basically gone now. You mentioned Intel and Microsoft, Microsoft and Intel. As many people know, some young people don't, IBM unwillingly handed its monopoly to Intel and Microsoft by outsourcing the micro processor and operating system, respectively. Those two companies ended up with IBM ironically, agreeing to take OS2 which was its proprietary operating system and giving Intel, Microsoft Windows not realizing that its ability to dominate a new disruptive market like PCs and operating systems had been vaporized to your earlier point by the new Wintel ecosystem. Now Dave, the government wanted to break Microsoft apart and split its OS business from its application software, in the case of Intel, Intel only had one business. You pointed out microprocessors so it couldn't bust it up, but take us through the history here and the consequences of each. >> Well, the Microsoft one is sort of a classic because the antitrust case which was raging in the sort of mid nineties and 1998 when it finally ended, those were the very, once again, everybody said, Bill Gates was unstoppable, no one could compete with Microsoft they'd buy them, destroy them, predatory pricing, whatever they were accusing of the attacks on Netscape all these sort of things. But those the very years where it was becoming clear first that Microsoft basically missed the early big years of the internet and then again, later missed all the early years of the mobile phone business going back to BlackBerrys and pilots and all those sorts of things. So here we are the government making the case that this company is unstoppable and you can't compete with them the very moment they're entirely on the defensive. And therefore wasn't surprising that that suit eventually was dropped with some minor concessions about Microsoft making it a little bit easier for third parties to work with them and treating people a little bit more, even handling perfectly good things that they did. But again, the more market took care of the problem far more than the antitrust activities did. The Intel one is also interesting cause it's sort of like the AT& T one. On the one hand antitrust actions made Intel much more likely and in fact, required to work with AMD enough to keep that company in business and having AMD lowered prices for consumers certainly probably sped up innovation in the personal computer business and appeared to have a lot of benefits for those early years. But when you look at it from a longer point of view and particularly when look at it again from a global point of view you see that, wow, they not so clear because that very presence of AMD meant that there's a lot more pressure on Intel in terms of its pricing, its profitability, its flexibility and its volumes. All the things that have made it harder for them to A, compete with chips made in Taiwan, let alone build them in the United States and therefore that long term effect of essentially requiring Intel to allow AMD to exist has undermined Intel's position globally and arguably has undermined America's position in the long run. And certainly Intel today is far more vulnerable to an ARM and Invidia to other specialized chips to China, to Taiwan all of these things are going on out there, they're less capable of resisting that than they would've been otherwise. So, you thought we had some real benefits with AMD and lower prices for consumers, but the long term unintended consequences are arguably pretty bad. >> Yeah, that's why we recently wrote in Intel two "Strategic To Fail", we'll see, Okay. now we come to 2022 and there are five companies with anti-trust targets on their backs. Although Microsoft seems to be the least susceptible to US government ironically intervention at this this point, but maybe not and we show "The Cincos Comas Club" in a homage to Russ Hanneman of the show "Silicon Valley" Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon all with trillion dollar plus valuations. But meta briefly crossed that threshold like Mr. Hanneman lost a comma and is now well under that market cap probably around five or 600 million, sorry, billion. But under serious fire nonetheless Dave, people often don't realize the immense monopoly power that IBM had which relatively speaking when measured its percent of industry revenue or profit dwarf that of any company in tech ever, but the industry is much smaller then, no internet, no cloud. Does it call for a different approach this time around? How should we think about these five companies their market power, the implications of government action and maybe what you suggested more narrow action versus broad sweeping changes. >> Yeah, and there's a lot there. I mean, if you go back to the old days IBM had what, 70% of the computer business globally and AT&T had 90% or so of the American telecom market. So market shares that today's players can only dream of. Intel and Microsoft had 90% of the personal computer market. And then you look at today the big five and as wealthy and as incredibly successful as they've been, you sort of have almost the argument that's wrong on the face of it. How can five companies all of which compete with each other to at least some degree, how can they all be monopolies? And the reality is they're not monopolies, they're all oligopolies that are very powerful firms, but none of them have an outright monopoly on anything. There are competitors in all the spaces that they're in and increasing and probably increasingly so. And so, yeah, I think people conflate the extraordinary success of the companies with this belief that therefore they are monopolist and I think they're far less so than those in the past. >> Great, all right, I want to do a quick drill down to cloud computing, it's a key component of digital business infrastructure in his book, "Seeing Digital", Dave Moschella coined a term the matrix or the key which is really referred to the key technology platforms on which people are going to build digital businesses. Dave, we joke you should have called it the metaverse you were way ahead of your time. But I want to look at this ETR chart, we show spending momentum or net score on the vertical access market share or pervasiveness in the dataset on the horizontal axis. We show this view a lot, we put a dotted line at the 40% mark which indicates highly elevated spending. And you can sort of see Microsoft in the upper right, it's so far up to the right it's hidden behind the January 22 and AWS is right there. Those two dominate the cloud far ahead of the pack including Google Cloud. Microsoft and to a lesser extent AWS they dominate in a lot of other businesses, productivity, collaboration, database, security, video conferencing. MarTech with LinkedIn PC software et cetera, et cetera, Googles or alphabets of business of course is ads and we don't have similar spending data on Apple and Facebook, but we know these companies dominate their respective business. But just to give you a sense of the magnitude of these companies, here's some financial data that's worth looking at briefly. The table ranks companies by market cap in trillions that's the second column and everyone in the club, but meta and each has revenue well over a hundred billion dollars, Amazon approaching half a trillion dollars in revenue. The operating income and cash positions are just mind boggling and the cash equivalents are comparable or well above the revenues of highly successful tech companies like Cisco, Dell, HPE, Oracle, and Salesforce. They're extremely profitable from an operating income standpoint with the clear exception of Amazon and we'll come back to that in a moment and we show the revenue multiples in the last column, Apple, Microsoft, and Google, just insane. Dave, there are other equally important metrics, CapX is one which kind of sets the stage for future scale and there are other measures. >> Yeah, including our research and development where those companies are spending hundreds of billions of dollars over the years. And I think it's easy to look at those numbers and just say, this doesn't seem right, how can any companies have so much and spend so much? But if you think of what they're actually doing, those companies are building out the digital infrastructure of essentially the entire world. And I remember once meeting some folks at Google, and they said, beyond AI, beyond Search, beyond Android, beyond all the specific things we do, the biggest thing we're actually doing is building a physical infrastructure that can deliver search results on any topic in microseconds and the physical capacity they built costs those sorts of money. And when people start saying, well, we should have lots and lots of smaller companies well, that sounds good, yeah, it's all right, but where are those companies going to get the money to build out what needs to be built out? And every country in the world is trying to build out its digital infrastructure and some are going to do it much better than others. >> I want to just come back to that chart on Amazon for a bit, notice their comparatively tiny operating profit as a percentage of revenue, Amazon is like Bezos giant lifestyle business, it's really never been that profitable like most retail. However, there's one other financial data point around Amazon's business that we want to share and this chart here shows Amazon's operating profit in the blue bars and AWS's in the orange. And the gray line is the percentage of Amazon's overall operating profit that comes from AWS. That's the right most access, so last quarter we were well over a hundred percent underscoring the power of AWS and the horrendous margins in retail. But AWS is essentially funding Amazon's entrance into new markets, whether it's grocery or movies, Bezos moves into space. Dave, a while back you collaborated with us and we asked our audience, what could disrupt Amazon? And we came up with your detailed help, a number of scenarios as shown here. And we asked the audience to rate the likelihood of each scenario in terms of its likelihood of disrupting Amazon with a 10 being highly likely on average the score was six with complacency, arrogance, blindness, you know, self-inflicted wounds really taking the top spot with 6.5. So Dave is breaking up Amazon the right formula in your view, why or why not? >> Yeah, there's a couple of things there. The first is sort of the irony that when people in the sort of regulatory world talk about the power of Amazon, they almost always talk about their power in consumer markets, whether it's books or retail or impact on malls or main street shops or whatever and as you say that they make very little money doing that. The interest people almost never look at the big cloud battle between Amazon, Microsoft and lesser extent Google, Alibaba others, even though that's where they're by far highest market share and pricing power and all those things are. So the regulatory focus is sort of weird, but you know, the consumer stuff obviously gets more appeal to the general public. But that survey you referred to me was interesting because one of the challenges I sort of sent myself I was like okay, well, if I'm going to say that IBM case, AT&T case, Microsoft's case in all those situations the market was the one that actually minimized the power of those firms and therefore the antitrust stuff wasn't really necessary. Well, how true is that going to be again, just cause it's been true in the past doesn't mean it's true now. So what are the possible scenarios over the 2020s that might make it all happen again? And so each of those were sort of questions that we put out to others, but the ones that to me by far are the most likely I mean, they have the traditional one of company cultures sort of getting fat and happy and all, that's always the case, but the more specific ones, first of all by far I think is China. You know, Amazon retail is a low margin business. It would be vulnerable if it didn't have the cloud profits behind it, but imagine a year from now two years from now trade tensions with China get worse and Christmas comes along and China just says, well, you know, American consumers if you want that new exercise bike or that new shoes or clothing, well, anything that we make well, actually that's not available on Amazon right now, but you can get that from Alibaba. And maybe in America that's a little more farfetched, but in many countries all over the world it's not farfetched at all. And so the retail divisions vulnerability to China just seems pretty obvious. Another possible disruption, Amazon has spent billions and billions with their warehouses and their robots and their automated inventory systems and all the efficiencies that they've done there, but you could argue that maybe someday that's not really necessary that you have Search which finds where a good is made and a logistical system that picks that up and delivers it to customers and why do you need all those warehouses anyways? So those are probably the two top one, but there are others. I mean, a lot of retailers as they get stronger online, maybe they start pulling back some of the premium products from Amazon and Amazon takes their cut of whatever 30% or so people might want to keep more of that in house. You see some of that going on today. So the idea that the Amazon is in vulnerable disruption is probably is wrong and as part of the work that I'm doing, as part of stuff that I do with Dave and SiliconANGLE is how's that true for the others too? What are the scenarios for Google or Apple or Microsoft and the scenarios are all there. And so, will these companies be disrupted as they have in the past? Well, you can't say for sure, but the scenarios are certainly plausible and I certainly wouldn't bet against it and that's what history tells us. And it could easily happen once again and therefore, the antitrust should at least be cautionary and humble and realize that maybe they don't need to act as much as they think. >> Yeah, now, one of the things that you mentioned in your piece was felt like narrow remedies, were more logical. So you're not arguing for totally Les Affaire you're pushing for remedies that are more targeted in scope. And while the EU just yesterday announced new rules to limit the power of tech companies and we showed the article, some comments here the regulators they took the social media to announce a victory and they had a press conference. I know you watched that it was sort of a back slapping fest. The comments however, that we've sort of listed here are mixed, some people applauded, but we saw many comments that were, hey, this is a horrible idea, this was rushed together. And these are going to result as you say in unintended consequences, but this is serious stuff they're talking about applying would appear to be to your point or your prescription more narrowly defined restrictions although a lot of them to any company with a market cap of more than 75 billion Euro or turnover of more than 77.5 billion Euro which is a lot of companies and imposing huge penalties for violations up to 20% of annual revenue for repeat offenders, wow. So again, you've taken a brief look at these developments, you watched the press conference, what do you make of this? This is an application of more narrow restrictions, but in your quick assessment did they get it right? >> Yeah, let's break that down a little bit, start a little bit of history again and then get to Europe because although big sweeping breakups of the type that were proposed for IBM, Microsoft and all weren't necessary that doesn't mean that the government didn't do some useful things because they did. In the case of IBM government forces in Europe and America basically required IBM to make it easier for companies to make peripherals type drives, disc drives, printers that worked with IBM mainframes. They made them un-bundle their software pricing that made it easier for database companies and others to sell their of products. With AT&T it was the government that required AT&T to actually allow other phones to connect to the network, something they argued at the time would destroy security or whatever that it was the government that required them to allow MCI the long distance carrier to connect to the AT network for local deliveries. And with that Microsoft and Intel the government required them to at least treat their suppliers more even handly in terms of pricing and policies and support and such things. So the lessons out there is the big stuff wasn't really necessary, but the little stuff actually helped a lot and I think you can see the scenarios and argue in the piece that there's little stuff that can be done today in all the cases for the big five, there are things that you might want to consider the companies aren't saints they take advantage of their power, they use it in ways that sometimes can be reigned in and make for better off overall. And so that's how it brings us to the European piece of it. And to me, the European piece is much more the bad scenario of doing too much than the wiser course of trying to be narrow and specific. What they've basically done is they have a whole long list of narrow things that they're all trying to do at once. So they want Amazon not to be able to share data about its selling partners and they want Apple to open up their app store and they don't want people Google to be able to share data across its different services, Android, Search, Mail or whatever. And they don't want Facebook to be able to, they want to force Facebook to open up to other messaging services. And they want to do all these things for all the big companies all of which are American, and they want to do all that starting next year. And to me that looks like a scenario of a lot of difficult problems done quickly all of which might have some value if done really, really well, but all of which have all kinds of risks for the unintended consequence we've talked before and therefore they seem to me being too much too soon and the sort of problems we've seen in the past and frankly to really say that, I mean, the Europeans would never have done this to the companies if they're European firms, they're doing this because they're all American firms and the sort of frustration of Americans dominance of the European tech industry has always been there going back to IBM, Microsoft, Intel, and all of them. But it's particularly strong now because the tech business is so big. And so I think the politics of this at a time where we're supposedly all this great unity of America and NATO and Europe in regards to Ukraine, having the Europeans essentially go after the most important American industry brings in the geopolitics in I think an unavoidable way. And I would think the story is going to get pretty tense over the next year or so and as you say, the Europeans think that they're taking massive actions, they think they're doing the right thing. They think this is the natural follow on to the GDPR stuff and even a bigger version of that and they think they have more to come and they see themselves as the people taming big tech not just within Europe, but for the world and absent any other rules that they may pull that off. I mean, GDPR has indeed spread despite all of its flaws. So the European thing which it doesn't necessarily get huge attention here in America is certainly getting attention around the world and I would think it would get more, even more going forward. >> And the caution there is US public policy makers, maybe they can provide, they will provide a tailwind maybe it's a blind spot for them and it could be a template like you say, just like GDPR. Okay, Dave, we got to leave it there. Thanks for coming on the program today, always appreciate your insight and your views, thank you. >> Hey, thanks a lot, Dave. >> All right, don't forget these episodes are all available as podcast, wherever you listen. All you got to do is search, "Breaking Analysis Podcast". Check out ETR website, etr.ai. We publish every week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. And you can email me david.vellante@siliconangle.com or DM me @davevellante. Comment on my LinkedIn post. This is Dave Vellante for Dave Michelle for "theCUBE Insights" powered by ETR. Have a great week, stay safe, be well and we'll see you next time. (slow tempo music)

>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR, this is "Breaking Analysis" with Dave Vellante. >> If it weren't for Pat Gelsinger, Intel's future would be a disaster. Even with his clear vision, fantastic leadership, deep technical and business acumen, and amazing positivity, the company's future is in serious jeopardy. It's the same story we've been telling for years. Volume is king in the semiconductor industry, and Intel no longer is the volume leader. Despite Intel's efforts to change that dynamic With several recent moves, including making another go at its Foundry business, the company is years away from reversing its lagging position relative to today's leading foundries and design shops. Intel's best chance to survive as a leader in our view, will come from a combination of a massive market, continued supply constraints, government money, and luck, perhaps in the form of a deal with apple in the midterm. Hello, and welcome to this week's "Wikibon CUBE Insights, Powered by ETR." In this "Breaking Analysis," we'll update you on our latest assessment of Intel's competitive position and unpack nuggets from the company's February investor conference. Let's go back in history a bit and review what we said in the early 2010s. If you've followed this program, you know that our David Floyer sounded the alarm for Intel as far back as 2012, the year after PC volumes peaked. Yes, they've ticked up a bit in the past couple of years but they pale in comparison to the volumes that the ARM ecosystem is producing. The world has changed from people entering data into machines, and now it's machines that are driving all the data. Data volumes in Web 1.0 were largely driven by keystrokes and clicks. Web 3.0 is going to be driven by machines entering data into sensors, cameras. Other edge devices are going to drive enormous data volumes and processing power to boot. Every windmill, every factory device, every consumer device, every car, will require processing at the edge to run AI, facial recognition, inference, and data intensive workloads. And the volume of this space compared to PCs and even the iPhone itself is about to be dwarfed with an explosion of devices. Intel is not well positioned for this new world in our view. Intel has to catch up on the process, Intel has to catch up on architecture, Intel has to play catch up on security, Intel has to play catch up on volume. The ARM ecosystem has cumulatively shipped 200 billion chips to date, and is shipping 10x Intel's wafer volume. Intel has to have an architecture that accommodates much more diversity. And while it's working on that, it's years behind. All that said, Pat Gelsinger is doing everything he can and more to close the gap. Here's a partial list of the moves that Pat is making. A year ago, he announced IDM 2.0, a new integrated device manufacturing strategy that opened up its world to partners for manufacturing and other innovation. Intel has restructured, reorganized, and many executives have boomeranged back in, many previous Intel execs. They understand the business and have a deep passion to help the company regain its prominence. As part of the IDM 2.0 announcement, Intel created, recreated if you will, a Foundry division and recently acquired Tower Semiconductor an Israeli firm, that is going to help it in that mission. It's opening up partnerships with alternative processor manufacturers and designers. And the company has announced major investments in CAPEX to build out Foundry capacity. Intel is going to spin out Mobileye, a company it had acquired for 15 billion in 2017. Or does it try and get a $50 billion valuation? Mobileye is about $1.4 billion in revenue, and is likely going to be worth more around 25 to 30 billion, we'll see. But Intel is going to maybe get $10 billion in cash from that, that spin out that IPO and it can use that to fund more FABS and more equipment. Intel is leveraging its 19,000 software engineers to move up the stack and sell more subscriptions and high margin software. He got to sell what he got. And finally Pat is playing politics beautifully. Announcing for example, FAB investments in Ohio, which he dubbed Silicon Heartland. Brilliant! Again, there's no doubt that Pat is moving fast and doing the right things. Here's Pat at his investor event in a T-shirt that says, "torrid, bringing back the torrid pace and discipline that Intel is used to." And on the right is Pat at the State of the Union address, looking sharp in shirt and tie and suit. And he has said, "a bet on Intel is a hedge against geopolitical instability in the world." That's just so good. To that statement, he showed this chart at his investor meeting. Basically it shows that whereas semiconductor manufacturing capacity has gone from 80% of the world's volume to 20%, he wants to get it back to 50% by 2030, and reset supply chains in a market that has become important as oil. Again, just brilliant positioning and pushing all the right hot buttons. And here's a slide underscoring that commitment, showing manufacturing facilities around the world with new capacity coming online in the next few years in Ohio and the EU. Mentioning the CHIPS Act in his presentation in The US and Europe as part of a public private partnership, no doubt, he's going to need all the help he can get. Now, we couldn't resist the chart on the left here shows wafer starts and transistor capacity growth. For Intel, overtime speaks to its volume aspirations. But we couldn't help notice that the shape of the curve is somewhat misleading because it shows a two-year (mumbles) and then widens the aperture to three years to make the curve look steeper. Fun with numbers. Okay, maybe a little nitpick, but these are some of the telling nuggets we pulled from the investor day, and they're important. Another nitpick is in our view, wafers would be a better measure of volume than transistors. It's like a company saying we shipped 20% more exabytes or MIPS this year than last year. Of course you did, and your revenue shrank. Anyway, Pat went through a detailed analysis of the various Intel businesses and promised mid to high double digit growth by 2026, half of which will come from Intel's traditional PC they center in network edge businesses and the rest from advanced graphics HPC, Mobileye and Foundry. Okay, that sounds pretty good. But it has to be taken into context that the balance of the semiconductor industry, yeah, this would be a pretty competitive growth rate, in our view, especially for a 70 plus billion dollar company. So kudos to Pat for sticking his neck out on this one. But again, the promise is several years away, at least four years away. Now we want to focus on Foundry because that's the only way Intel is going to get back into the volume game and the volume necessary for the company to compete. Pat built this slide showing the baby blue for today's Foundry business just under a billion dollars and adding in another $1.5 billion for Tower Semiconductor, the Israeli firm that it just acquired. So a few billion dollars in the near term future for the Foundry business. And then by 2026, this really fuzzy blue bar. Now remember, TSM is the new volume leader, and is a $50 billion company growing. So there's definitely a market there that it can go after. And adding in ARM processors to the mix, and, you know, opening up and partnering with the ecosystems out there can only help volume if Intel can win that business, which you know, it should be able to, given the likelihood of long term supply constraints. But we remain skeptical. This is another chart Pat showed, which makes the case that Foundry and IDM 2.0 will allow expensive assets to have a longer useful life. Okay, that's cool. It will also solve the cumulative output problem highlighted in the bottom right. We've talked at length about Wright's Law. That is, for every cumulative doubling of units manufactured, cost will fall by a constant percentage. You know, let's say around 15% in semiconductor world, which is vitally important to accommodate next generation chips, which are always more expensive at the start of the cycle. So you need that 15% cost buffer to jump curves and make any money. So let's unpack this a bit. You know, does this chart at the bottom right address our Wright's Law concerns, i.e. that Intel can't take advantage of Wright's Law because it can't double cumulative output fast enough? Now note the decline in wafer starts and then the slight uptick, and then the flattening. It's hard to tell what years we're talking about here. Intel is not going to share the sausage making because it's probably not pretty, But you can see on the bottom left, the flattening of the cumulative output curve in IDM 1.0 otherwise known as the death spiral. Okay, back to the power of Wright's Law. Now, assume for a second that wafer density doesn't grow. It does, but just work with us for a second. Let's say you produce 50 million units per year, just making a number up. That gets you cumulative output to $100 million in, sorry, 100 million units in the second year to take you two years to get to that 100 million. So in other words, it takes two years to lower your manufacturing cost by, let's say, roughly 15%. Now, assuming you can get wafer volumes to be flat, which that chart showed, with good yields, you're at 150 now in year three, 200 in year four, 250 in year five, 300 in year six, now, that's four years before you can take advantage of Wright's Law. You keep going at that flat wafer start, and that simplifying assumption we made at the start and 50 million units a year, and well, you get to the point. You get the point, it's now eight years before you can get the Wright's Law to kick in, and you know, by then you're cooked. But now you can grow the density of transistors on a chip, right? Yes, of course. So let's come back to Moore's Law. The graphic on the left says that all the growth is in the new stuff. Totally agree with that. Huge term that Pat presented. Now he also said that until we exhaust the periodic table of elements, Moore's Law is alive and well, and Intel is the steward of Moore's Law. Okay, that's cool. The chart on the right shows Intel going from 100 billion transistors today to a trillion by 2030. Hold that thought. So Intel is assuming that we'll keep up with Moore's Law, meaning a doubling of transistors every let's say two years, and I believe it. So bring that back to Wright's Law, in the previous chart, it means with IDM 2.0, Intel can get back to enjoying the benefits of Wright's Law every two years, let's say, versus IDM 1.0 where they were failing to keep up. Okay, so Intel is saved, yeah? Well, let's bring into this discussion one of our favorite examples, Apple's M1 ARM-based chip. The M1 Ultra is a new architecture. And you can see the stats here, 114 billion transistors on a five nanometer process and all the other stats. The M1 Ultra has two chips. They're bonded together. And Apple put an interposer between the two chips. An interposer is a pathway that allows electrical signals to pass through it onto another chip. It's a super fast connection. You can see 2.5 terabytes per second. But the brilliance is the two chips act as a single chip. So you don't have to change the software at all. The way Intel's architecture works is it takes two different chips on a substrate, and then each has its own memory. The memory is not shared. Apple shares the memory for the CPU, the NPU, the GPU. All of it is shared, meaning it needs no change in software unlike Intel. Now Intel is working on a new architecture, but Apple and others are way ahead. Now let's make this really straightforward. The original Apple M1 had 16 billion transistors per chip. And you could see in that diagram, the recently launched M1 Ultra has $114 billion per chip. Now if you take into account the size of the chips, which are increasing, and the increase in the number of transistors per chip, that transistor density, that's a factor of around 6x growth in transistor density per chip in 18 months. Remember Intel, assuming the results in the two previous charts that we showed, assuming they were achievable, is running at 2x every two years, versus 6x for the competition. And AMD and Nvidia are close to that as well because they can take advantage of TSM's learning curve. So in the previous chart with Moore's Law, alive and well, Intel gets to a trillion transistors by 2030. The Apple ARM and Nvidia ecosystems will arrive at that point years ahead of Intel. That means lower costs and significantly better competitive advantage. Okay, so where does that leave Intel? The story is really not resonating with investors and hasn't for a while. On February 18th, the day after its investor meeting, the stock was off. It's rebound a little bit but investors are, you know, they're probably prudent to wait unless they have really a long term view. And you can see Intel's performance relative to some of the major competitors. You know, Pat talked about five nodes in for years. He made a big deal out of that, and he shared proof points with Alder Lake and Meteor Lake and other nodes, but Intel just delayed granite rapids last month that pushed it out from 2023 to 2024. And it told investors that we're going to have to boost spending to turn this ship around, which is absolutely the case. And that delay in chips I feel like the first disappointment won't be the last. But as we've said many times, it's very difficult, actually, it's impossible to quickly catch up in semiconductors, and Intel will never catch up without volume. So we'll leave you by iterating our scenario that could save Intel, and that's if its Foundry business can eventually win back Apple to supercharge its volume story. It's going to be tough to wrestle that business away from TSM especially as TSM is setting up shop in Arizona, with US manufacturing that's going to placate The US government. But look, maybe the government cuts a deal with Apple, says, hey, maybe we'll back off with the DOJ and FTC and as part of the CHIPS Act, you'll have to throw some business at Intel. Would that be enough when combined with other Foundry opportunities Intel could theoretically produce? Maybe. But from this vantage point, it's very unlikely Intel will gain back its true number one leadership position. If it were really paranoid back when David Floyer sounded the alarm 10 years ago, yeah, that might have made a pretty big difference. But honestly, the best we can hope for is Intel's strategy and execution allows it to get competitive volumes by the end of the decade, and this national treasure survives to fight for its leadership position in the 2030s. Because it would take a miracle for that to happen in the 2020s. Okay, that's it for today. Thanks to David Floyer for his contributions to this research. Always a pleasure working with David. Stephanie Chan helps me do much of the background research for "Breaking Analysis," and works with our CUBE editorial team. Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight to get the word out. And thanks to SiliconANGLE's editor in chief Rob Hof, who comes up with a lot of the great titles that we have for "Breaking Analysis" and gets the word out to the SiliconANGLE audience. Thanks, guys. Great teamwork. Remember, these episodes are all available as podcast wherever you listen. Just search "Breaking Analysis Podcast." You'll want to check out ETR's website @etr.ai. We also publish a full report every week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. You could always get in touch with me on email, david.vellante@siliconangle.com or DM me @dvellante, and comment on my LinkedIn posts. This is Dave Vellante for "theCUBE Insights, Powered by ETR." Have a great week. Stay safe, be well, and we'll see you next time. (upbeat music)

>> From theCUBE studios in Palo Alto, in Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is breaking analysis with Dave Vellante. >> Despite the posture from some that big tech generally and Amazon specifically, should be regulated and/or broken apart, recent survey research suggests that Amazon faces many disruption challenges, independent of any government intervention. Specifically, respondents to our recent survey believe that history will repeat itself in that there's a 60% probability that Amazon Inc. will be disrupted by market forces, including self-inflicted wounds. Amazon faces at least seven significant disruption scenarios of varying likelihood and impact, perhaps leading to the conclusion that the government should just let the market adjudicate Amazon Inc's ultimate destiny. Hello, and welcome to this week's Wikibon CUBE insights powered by ETR. In this breaking analysis and ahead of AWS reinvent, we share the results of our survey designed to assess what if anything, could disrupt Amazon specifically, Amazon Inc. not just AWS. Now here's the background of the survey. Recently, in collaboration with author David Mitchell, the cube initiated a community research project to understand one, what scenarios could disrupt Amazon and two, what's the likelihood that each scenario would occur. We developed the scenarios, we tested them in small samples and then refine the questions and launch the survey. Here are the key findings. The survey asked respondents to rate the likelihood of each scenario disrupting Amazon on a scale of 1-10. As we show here, we have inferred that the ratings are a proxy for probability of disruption. And now in the interest of simplicity, we chose not to have respondents evaluate the impact of the disruption, at this time anyway. Here's the ranking by order of likelihood for each scenario. The end in the survey was just under 600 at 597 respondents. On average, across all scenarios, respondents indicate there's a 60% probability that Amazon will be disrupted. By one of, or some combination of these seven scenarios. Now by a notable margin, respondents felt that complacency, I.e a self-inflicted wound or series of wounds would be the most likely disruption scenario for Amazon. Now history in the industry would support this scenario is leadership in the tech business has proven to be transitory. The likelihood of a technological disruption was rated the lowest at 5.5, although some of the open-ended responses suggested that new models of computing could emerge. Look in the mainframe days, sharing resources in a timeshare model was very popular and then that gave way to a model of dedicated centralized infrastructure. The prevailing model then became distributed computing, which has seeded momentum back to a more centralized cloud. It's not inconceivable that with edge computing, the pendulum could swing back again. Now on balance, the remaining scenarios hovered around 60% likelihood individually, but taken all together The combination of these factors, it could be argued, present a multitude of challenges to Amazon Inc. Now, by looking at the distribution of responses, you can see further evidence of potential to disrupt the company. Here are the distribution results for each scenario and the order of the questions that they were presented. First, was government mandated separation, divestment and/or limits on Amazon's cloud computing, retail, media, credit card, and/or in-house product groups. 47% of the respondents believe there's a 70% or better chance of the government disrupting Amazon. Next question was major companies increasingly choose to do their own cloud computing and/or sell their products directly for competitive costs, security, or other reasons. Think of this as do it yourself cloud. That was not as prominent, but still 42% of respondents gave this a 70% chance or better. So think Walmart, the Walmart cloud or the target cloud. Okay, the next question was environmental policies raise, or the next scenario, environmental policies raise costs, change packaging delivery, recycling rules, and/or consumer preferences. If you think about it Amazon, they ship, you know, they order a toothpaste that comes in a box and every little piece you order every little item that you order comes in its own separate package. So environmental policy intervention showed a similar profile as above with a somewhat less likelihood in that 70% plus range. Okay next scenario was price or trade wars with the U.S and/or China create friction with e-commerce giants. So for instance, the China cloud or/and or e-commerce giants and protectionism would start to favor national players. Think again pricing wars, trade wars, you know, with China and others had a similar profile for likelihood as we just showed you earlier. But you know, what if you went, think about this thought exercise? What if you go on the web to order an item and AWS doesn't have it but Alibaba does. You know, maybe that's not such a huge factor at the U.S because really we don't buy directly from Alibaba but certainly outside of the United States particularly in Asia Pacific, it could be a scenario that disrupts Amazon Inc. Okay, the next scenario, major computing innovations, such as quantum edge or machine-to-machine obsolete today's cloud architectures. Tech disruptions ranked the lowest of all of these scenarios presumably because AWS is seen as on the cutting edge technically. So only 36% of respondents felt there was a 70% or better probability of this scenario disrupting Amazon. Next scenario, software replaces, centralized warehouses as delivery services are directly connected to suppliers and factories. Perhaps this is one of the most interesting scenarios I mean, imagine if Google creates software that upon a search, you can then order the item and have it shipped directly to you, no middle person. You know, like an airline ticket actually is today, except now it's physical goods. This direct model would disrupt Amazon's warehouse approach, but as you can see, it didn't really strike the respondents as highly likely. We think it's actually again, one of the more interesting scenarios, and it's certainly being put to the test by, for instance Alibaba, which really doesn't rely on a massive warehouse infrastructure. Now by far, the most likely scenario as rated by their respondents was this one; Complacency, arrogance, blindness, abusive power, loss of trust, consumer and/or employee backlash/boycotts. Think of it as self-inflicted wounds. More than half of the respondents indicated that there's a better than 70% chance that Amazon Inc. would shoot itself in the foot over time. And again, history would suggest this is consistent in the most likely pattern, especially when new executives come in. I mean, you saw this with famous companies at the time, like Wang, Digital, IBM eventually, Intel going through some of the challenges that we see today, Microsoft under bomber. And you know you see these founder led companies like Dell and Oracle they continue to thrive. Salesforce as well but it could be that today's executives and systems are more tuned to longevity, Andy Jassy is a long time Amazonian, Adam Selipsky the new CEO of AWS, he boomeranged back to AWS from Tableau, he's got a deep understanding of the company and its culture. So it's by no means assured that Amazon is going to trip up, However, taken together in combination, these factors suggest that government intervention may not be necessary. Indeed, the history of government breakups and pressure on big tech has been mixed and arguably futile. AT&T, IBM and Microsoft all came under close government scrutiny. and in the case of AT&T, the company was broken up. Generally these actions led to the US companies being less competitive, certainly was the case with AT&T is international telcos became dominant in the market. And in the case of IBM and Microsoft antitrust actions by the government while a distraction, were less a factor in the challenges that these firms ultimately faced and challenges to their leadership then were market disruptions. Think about an IBM unwittingly and famously handed its monopoly power to Intel and Microsoft in the PC era, and Microsoft under Ballmer, yeah kind of hugged onto its windows past and it became much less relevant in the industry until Satya Nadella initiated Microsoft's current hugely successful strategy, on top of the Azure cloud. The point is, despite the saber rattling of governments, history would suggest that market forces will be much more successful in moderating the power of giants like Amazon. We'll leave you with one last thought. At a $64 billion run rate and a 39% growth rate last quarter, AWS is the profit engine of Amazon. AWS accounts for over a hundred percent of Amazon Incs overall operating profit, so it was surprising to us last quarter when the stock dropped kind of precipitously after Amazon Inc. announced its earnings, its retail business underperformed, but AWS blew away expectations. The profit engine, the stock rebounded since then, and many investors saw it as a buying opportunity by the dip. But the point is that AWS is the most critical part of Amazon Inc. in our opinion. It helps fund Amazon's massive capex investment and gives Amazon a platform to enter other industries like payments, and content and groceries and other industries that Amazon wants to disrupt. So if you look at the ETR data across AWS's vast portfolio, The picture is very solid. This chart shows net score or spending momentum for AWS in its businesses comparing three survey snapshots, October 2020, July 21 and October, 2021, that's the yellow bar. Note, the comments from ETR at every sector, AWS spending velocity's up relative to last year. And we certainly saw that in this year's AWS results, accelerating growth with a much larger revenue base across the board and infrastructure, AI data, database analytics, core cloud, everything is up even chime, which is amazing because chime is horrible compared to other tools that you use of that like, but other than that weak spot, AWS is hitting on all cylinders. So what do you think should the government put the shackles on Amazon Inc? Or should it just let the market forces do their thing? Now, by the way we asked respondents, what else could disrupt Amazon, other than these seven scenarios? And we received some pretty interesting open-ended responses that we'll publish for your enjoyment, including my favorite; God could disrupt the Amazon. Okay, that's it for now, thanks to my colleague, David Mitchell for his excellent work on these scenarios. Don't forget these episodes of Braking Analysis, They're all available as podcasts, wherever you listen. All you're got to do is search Braking Analysis podcast. Don't forget to check out ETR's website at etr.plus. We also publish a full report every week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com, you can get in touch with me directly David.volante@siliconangle.com or you can DM me at @DVellante. You can comment on our LinkedIn posts. This is Dave Vellante for The Cube Insights, powered by ETR. Have a great week, be safe, be well and we'll see you next time. (upbeat music)